Saturday, December 31, 2011

Further Postings of Herr der Elf

Hide All / Expand All

Herr der Elf : Read "Where Did The Towers Go"


Jim Archer wrote August 10, 2011 - 3:34 pm

Want to know what happened to the WTC. Read Dr. Judy Wood, “Where Did The Towers Go”

You will not regret reading this book.

I concur. I originally purchased it knowing that it might contain disinformation, but my plan was to mine the nuggets of truth from it to bolster my belief (at the time) that milli-nukes decimated the towers into fine powder. I wasn’t even 1/2 way finished before I could endorse the book stemming from the awesome array of images correlated to map positions to give perspective and scope to those of us not in NY, with the caveat that if the 2nd 1/2 turned out to be disinformation, we’d still want Dr. Wood’s book in our possession to show our grandkids how our generation was played.

Silly me. I finished the book. Dr. Wood does a great job of presenting evidence and allowing for (high-energy) concepts to be presented without explicitly stating what happened. In any event, she convinced me of directed energy weapons. “Space-based DEW”? That is a misrepresentation of what she presents on the towers, when clearly the destruction (DEW) was inside. However, such space-based DEW shouldn’t be taken off the table too quickly (which was the disinfo intent) for the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the flattening of WTC-4 main edifice at a line with its intact North wing.

Be that as it my, my current wild-ass speculation is that cold-fusion (or another nuclear reactor type device) generated the energy fed into DEW weapons within the towers. The energy was directed up & down and effectively turned the residual water molecules in content (concrete, drywall, humans, etc.) rapidly into steam, whose expanding volume then ripped apart the “container” of the content leaving dust and steam. The outer walls were left to hide this destruction, and then disassembled at the connecting bolts by the infamous super-dooper nano-thermite. The anomalous radiation signatures did not match any known nuclear weapon, a fact that was skewed to rule out erroneously all nuclear weapons or nuclear energy sources.

I forgot to mention the “spire” in WTC-1 that was left standing at great heights until a ground-based DEW decimated its concrete and support. This may have been part of the design rather than an accident. In other words, some top-level DEW devices may have been mounted around this support column. The DEW devices were aimed away from this support so that they could continue to beam their energy into the dissolving tower. At some point in time, the DEW devices would be cut from the support by that super dooper nano-thermite. This support spire standing for as long as it did may have been an accident, but standing for some time to help the internal DEW devices aim and beam might have been part of the plan. Again, this is just my wild-ass speculation from years of 9/11 research. DEW makes the most sense.

Herr der Elf : Two-Trick 9/11 Pony: Video Forgery and DEW


I've been a two-trick 9/11 pony for years: video forgery and milli-nukes.

Alas, I've jumped back-and-forth over the video forgery fence, I don't know what I believe today except some degree of video manipulation happened, just like editors regularly photoshop already pretty women into being unrealistically drop-dead georgous. Such enhancements, like inserting pixels of planes into some footage that may not have depicted planes more more shock-and-awe, doesn't prove that all video footage was faked and that no planes hit the towers. What it does prove is a complicit corporate media to allow for (or actively edit) such fakes to be aired.

Were corporate media not complicit, we wouldn't be doing our September Clues analysis on poorly recorded broadcast footage complete with oversize banners and footers. No, corporate media would have opened their vaults and provided the raw footage long ago to settle the issue. They didn't, just like the FBI never released the 85 tapes they confiscated of cameras around the Pentagon. They all have something to hide.

On the milli-nukes front, that's not my pony any more. Now I'm riding DEW, thanks to Dr. Judy Wood's excellent book. (Those who try to debunk it without cracking its cover: shame on you!)

But to accomodate the radiation evidence that others (including Dr. Jones) try to gloss over and the poor health of first responders matching Hiroshima which had me tied to the milli-nukes saddle for years, I'm now saying cold-fusion or nuclear reactor powered the DEW devices.

You see, the flash, heat wave, and destructive wave of a milli-nuke would have been hard to control and contain. The unburned paper and trees, the anomalous damage to the metal in vehicles, and non-correlation of seismic data are indeed conclusive pieces of evidence pointed out by Dr. Wood against super dooper nanot-thermite, conventional demolition, and nukes. Yet, DEW does offer an explanation, rather Occam Razor.

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 : anomalous evidence of burned cars


[QUOTE=FirstUsedBooks;477]Re burnt cars:


Thank you Mr. FirstUsedBooks for this link. That link tries to dismiss the anomalous evidence of burned cars at 9/11, but not very effectively or convincingly.

I believe that either the nuclear/cold-fusion source for DEW or the DEW devices themselves created massive energy fields that slipped out of the confines of the towers steel structure via the window slits line of sight. These fields created eddy currents in, say, the sheets of metal of cars. Large fields yield large currents which yield heat, hot enough to burn paint and combustible objects attached, like door seals, plastic gas caps, plastic door handles, etc.

In some places where the car fires were started, yes, adjacent vehicles could be damaged by fires leaping between vehicles.

The evidence brought up by Dr. Wood is that some vehicles were beyond the radius of falling debris. Even if we assume that nano-thermite did it, such burning nano-thermite in the falling dust should have ignited other even more combustible things, like paper. It didn't. The issue is that the metal in vehicles appeared to be attacked first, as if influenced by an electromagnetic field.

Another piece of evidence often overlooked is that many vehicles were flipped. Nano-thermite doesn't explain this, neither does the wush of winds pushed by falling debris. What can answer this, however, are again those generated fields. For whatever reason, the generated field perceived some vehicle as being somehow polarized (like a magnetic) but with its N-S poles opposite to the field, thus field flipped the vehicle like a compass needle in the presence of a bar magnet to get it in alignment.

Also, to frame the evidence as space beams really does a disservice to the more important concept of directed energy weapons (DEW) and potential energy sources for DEW. The DEW devices were probably planted within the towers.

However, don't rule out space beams for the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling at a line of the main WTC-4 edifice but not its North Wing. I'm not saying I believe this. I'm saying that I'm objective enough to consider it, and it hasn't been ruled out in my book yet.

The massive and coordinated unreporting of Hurricane Erin on the morning of 9/11/2001 before any supposed plane impacts is important piece of evidence brought up by Dr. Wood. They had been reporting and tracking Erin all week. Yet, on the morning of 9/11 when Erin was at a close point to NYC, when it still could have turned into NYC (or elsewhere on the East Coast), when its storm surge could still be an issue for NYC, and when its presence would affect international flights to airports, the weathermen on all the networks (except for one slip by a FOX guy) somehow conspired to ignore hurricane Erin.

Why the unreporting?

We are also foolish to rule out free energy from storm systems via Tesla coils and whatnot as science fiction. It isn't. Of course, it remains valid to speculate whether or not such free energy was operationally deployed on 9/11, and if so, to what extent.

Herr der Elf : key phrase is "directed energy."


Dear Mr. AlienScientist,

Thank you for posting the BarbarianRebellion video. I find myself in alignment with most of his questioning of the events, questioning of evidence, questioning of destruction mechanisms.

Earlier you wrote:

[QUOTE=AlienScientist;850]There is also another issue regarding penetration depths of electromagnetic waves inside of conductors such as structural steel or aluminum cladding as found in the WTC. Basic laws of electrodynamics tell us that the towers metal exterior columns should have worked like a giant Faraday Cage shielding the 47 inner core columns from Direct Energy Microwaves (or any other wavelength of electromagnetic radiation greater than the window spacings in the towers) now even assuming a high frequency (short wavelength) EM wave, there is still the issue of penetration depth inside of conductors, reflection, refraction, and what commonly occurs when high energy EM radiation comes into contact with the free electrons on the surface of a conductor (i.e. the photoelectric effect) which is why metal objects spark when you put them inside of a microwave oven.[/Quote]

I agree.

However, I believe the key phrase is "directed energy." I believe the destructive energy was focused in a narrow-cone such that it didn't hit too much of the outer structure. It was designed to dustify the inside floors and content. The outer walls were to stand a few milli-seconds longer to precisely to shield things outside the building from the effects of the destructive fields. Nano-thermite then chunked the outer structure.

You conclude with:

[QUOTE=AlienScientist;850]I have pointed out several nearly insurmountable challenges against the DEW hypothesis (Energy Conservation, EM wave penetration in conductors, Energy production and deployment, the inaccurate depiction of nanothermite evidence as dustified building materials, as well as others [URL=""]mentioned here[/URL]), while the best arguments I have seen against nanothermite appear to be the issue of concrete pulverization, the issue of brightness of the thermite reaction, various oxidation and heating anomalies, and of course personal attacks against Dr. Steven Jones.[/Quote]

- Aiming the DEW accurately surmounts the EM penetration.
- Another posting postulates that energy production needs to be separated from the destructive cutting edge.
- Deployment of a few DEW devices and their energy sources would be easier than the massive overkill, overwiring required by nano-thermite.
- Yes, not all materials were dustified. But the dustification of concrete, drywall, office furniture, and other things resembling fixtures within the office space is telling.
- Dr. Gregory Jenkins may have his own axe to grind, in that he studies and does research into the very high energy systems & DEW that he tries to discredit Dr. Wood with and lead us away from.

As for the personal attacks? Geez, Dr. Wood is probably the most villified member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but most especially by the 9/11 Truth Movement. Dr. Jones regularly misclassifies and mischaracterizes all of the evidence and concepts that she presents as space beams.

Dr. Jones involvement with the derailing of cold-fusion for a decade or so is just one piece of the puzzle. What caught my eye early on when I was still on the milli-nuclear pony, was that he -- more so than any other persion within or without the 9/11 Truth Movement -- debunked the theory of nukes. One questionable area was his reliance on radiation measurements from the govt, when in other venues and papers he has derided the govt for being less than forecoming and foreright in what was provided and questioned its validity. Another was the bait-and-switch regarding acknowledging the anomalous tritium levels, yet writing them off because they didn't match the known radiation measurements from nuclear weapons of types X, Y, or Z. While true, it leaves the radiation levels and their potential sources unaddressed. Moreover, others have derided him on a mischaracterizing "background" or "trace levels" as being like 55 times higher than what "background" or "trace levels" of tritium were in the past.

In another posting, I re-use a nugget of truth gleamed from Dr. Wood, when I split up the power source from the destruction source. The power source could have been a milli-nuclear or cold-fusion reactor in the basement, which would help contain the radiation and the destruction more so than a nuclear weapon.

Regrettably, I am not in the position to support with experimentation my wild-ass speculations regarding causes for the destruction and proving DEW could do it. However, were I in such a position, I'd face the same challenges as those who really are. Namely, they know what side their bread is buttered on and who pays their salaries to feed their families and pay the mortgages. Anthrax and other whistleblower punishment showed the seriousness of speaking out, and against surely oaths of security and signed NDAs.

Herr der Elf : the level of my duped useful idiotness


Dear Mr. Kouby,

Regrettably, I promote not only DEW but also no-plane/video-fakery, such is the level of my duped useful idiotness. Those are my two twin trick-ponies that I ride like a circus clown.

If indeed one or both are in error, please use evidence, science, and reason to disabuse me from such nonsense. Alas, in my trips around the 9/11 block, this hasn't happened. Only ridicule and belittling comments. I encourage you to do better and turn me on to a new-and-improved theory that I can be the duped useful idiot on but closer to the 90% and with higher credibility people.

Sorry to have to point out the obvious, but the Catholic Church had more than 90% of the population agree on the sun orbiting around the earth. So this is one example of many where the the vast majority weren't necessarily right.

Before we get too far down these rabbit holes, allow me to remind this forum that the 2.25 seconds over 100 feet of WTC-7 of NIST-documented free-fall puts us into the same camp that 9/11 if not operationally then conceptionally was an inside job. We are in agreement to the general direction of who the true enemies to our constitution and republic were: insiders.

So when I prance around on these twin-ponies of DEW and no-planes, we're really just splitting hairs. I will readily suffer one or both of them to be shot out from underneath me midstream, but in such an event, a strong-stallion of a theory needs to be in the current for me to jump on to. I'm no dummy, even though I wear with honors the duped useful idiot crown.

Herr der Elf : creating other realities


Dear Mr. Kouby,

I hear and appreciate what you are saying. In essence, we are what Karl Rove predicted in how we judiciously review the actions of their administration meanwhile the administration (and the next) move ahead in creating other realities for us and world.

Stopping at remote-controlled planes and nano-thermite and lots of guilty looking coincidences has not secured justice, has not changed things, and has only made us look foolish for our inability to muster the levels of citizen outrage to change things.

This is the depressing side of the coin.

The flip-side is that outrage doesn't have to be so far off. What is required is knowledge of the extent of the ruse, and then for people to take action on a personal, community, local, and state level.

I will ignore your mischaracterization of DEW as space lasers and inappropriately bringing in the Russian nuke guy and reptilians. (Dr. Wood accidently debunks Dmitri K., the Russian nuke guy, because he claims deep underground nukes. The near prestine WTC bathtub together with the seismic evidence disproves this.)

You prematurely dismiss DEW and television fakery by saying we cannot continue debating these theories. Sure we can and should, because it demostrates the extent of the ruse. If we don't go there, we leave the door open for them to use it again and again on us. The salient point of September Clues was that the media was complicit like a cooperating branch of the military, and this holds true before studying the aircraft pixels and the errors in their rushed computer composition.

[QUOTE=kouby;1124]... the problem is the credibility of the theories. Let's just look at the no-plane/tv fakery theory.

How can anyone guarantee that no original scene footage is taken? New York is one of the worlds centrer media-wise. Thousands of individuals have home cameras, phones, etc. How can, 10 years later, there not be one piece of video footage showing something else than a plane hitting the twins towers?

On a feasibility level how can the operators of the inside job guarantee that no one would film or witness the events on that day? Where are all the witnesses saying they didn't see planes hitting the towers? [/QUOTE]

You ask how can anyone guarantee that no original scene footage is taken?

What was fundamental to the 9/11 PSYOPS was a belief that commercial airplanes were involved. This provides the shock-and-awe this could have been you flying. Let that sink in. The belief of commercial airplanes was more important and less risky in all aspects than real airplanes would have been. Thus it becomes a sales and marketing problem regarding how that belief can be planted and spread.

If there were no real planes, then there would be no cues to trigger amateur footage. Face it, five minutes of holding a camera to film smoke coming out of WTC-1 would be tops for most people. Authorities had people leave the area, on foot, further reducing who might be close enough to film something worthy. For most onlookers even those with cameras, the WTC-2 explosion was the only cue they got, and it came too late to capture (the lack of) a plane.

If someone was lucky enough to film WTC-1 and then capture the WTC-2 explosion, they would have some cognitive dissonance to overcome the belief of commercial airplanes propagated by the media over-and-over. They would assume that they were on the wrong side of the towers to capture the aircraft. Thus, they would assume their footage wasn't valuable, wasn't a money shot, and probably wouldn't pursue posting it.

For the record, there are mountains of witnesses who didn't see the planes. They were there and their first clue of something wrong was the explosion. Television broadcasters and reporters in news helicopters exhibit this phenomenon well. But lots of others were on the scene, but supposedly because of their vantage point they only saw the fireball, so they'd assume they were on the wrong side of the building thus explaining why their eyeballs didn't see the real plane.

The number of real witnesses (not tied in with the media and not of the miracle video crews) to either plane is relatively small, and is tainted by the repeated endlessly footage of pixels of an aircraft hitting the 2nd tower. Cognitive dissonance kicks in. "Well, I was there. I saw the fireball. I saw debris falling. I should have seen a plane live. And by golly, on the telly, I did see (pixels of) a plane. So yes, I did witness a plane hitting the 2nd tower when it hit."

Finally, in the middle you asked: "How can there not be one piece of video footage showing something else than a plane hitting the twins towers?" Because the "Israeli art students" planed artistic bombs to make a cartoon outline of a plane on the building. There was nothing else hitting the towers. That was the ruse. Pixels on the telly are what plant and water the seed that anything at all flew and hit the towers.

I'd write more, but am pressed for time. Sorry in advance. Discussing this is important, because using the media against us to taint our perceptions will happen again and again. Same applies to DEW. They already have DEW crowd control devices: one aims deafening noise and another aims a beam that penetrates only the top layers of skin but with an intense burning sensation.

Herr der Elf : extra treatment for Dr. Wood


Dear Mr. AlienScientist,

Yes, that is unfortunate. Your videos had my beliefs teeter in some of Dr. Judy Wood's DEW conclusions, although you haven't brought them to a tipping point. I'm looking forward to that.

Your video contains one element that might be the cause of your woes. Fix that one visual element, and such legal actions by Dr. Wood would have no further basis. Your video includes one or more images of Dr. Wood -- not the issue. The issue is when the words "Disinfo Agent" get put into the title area above her image. Keep the sound track and extend the previous "untitled" images of Dr. Wood such that "Disinfo Agent" no longer appears, and you will no longer be libeling/slandering Dr. Wood and giving her cause to take legal action.

I was a bit surprised myself that you gave Dr. Wood such extra treatment when you didn't do that to other "questionable" theories.

I find Dr. Wood sincere. I find her work most thought provoking. I find the coordinated attacks against her to be noteworthy. One of her students was killed in a mysterious way that certainly sends a message. She, like Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan and others, lost her job (or wasn't granted tenure.)

I find too many "leaders" of the 9/11 Movement mischaracterizing what she tries to open our minds to considering, ignoring and not explaining glaring pieces of evidence brought up by Dr. Wood, and employing ridicule and belittling comments almost as their sole arguments against the many facets of her work. Just as importantly, they steer us down alleys that always seem to stop at nano-thermite and go no further.

(What about the flipped cars? What about the anomalous burn patterns on vehicles, particularly those outside the radius of falling debris? What about the combustible materials all about that didn't burn while fires seeming originated in the metal in cars? What about the anomalous radiation measurements that Dr. Jones explained wasn't known nuclear weapons X, Y, or Z but didn't venture to explain what it could have been -- except the lame exit signs from the aircraft? What about the ill health of first responders more closely resembling that of radiation victims in Hiroshima and Nakasaki? What about the meteors that fused materials of vastly different content and burning/melting points? What about the energy requirements and logistics of pulverization and the duration of underground fires?)

There are plenty of ways to discuss the merits and demerits of DEW and things that Dr. Wood brings up for consideration (but doesn't necessarily conclude.) I am awaiting such rational videos and discussions.

I hope that you will fix your video from the libel and then go into proving her wrong.

BTW, re-posting the image of her billiard ball example doesn't prove anything right or wrong. Moreover, the physics of that example and her explanation aren't wrong. In fact, it is rather interesting. In a nutshell, if you have billiard balls suspended in air without support and then let one accelerate due to gravity into the one below it (and then into each successive one), the laws of conservation of energy and momentum suggest that the delays from successive impacts would result in a fall time significantly greater than the free-fall time. This is before considering that billiard balls can't be suspended in air, require some support, and that the resistance of such support would also factor in to increase the fall time to be significantly greater than the free-fall time. Alas, as we all know, even the 9/11 Commission Report based on a NIST report measures the collapse times of the two towers through their paths of greatest resistance within a couple seconds of free-fall -- unbelievably fast. This is the point, and Dr. Wood's billiard ball example attempts to prove this in a simplified manner for the science-challenged general public.

Herr der Elf : take exception to mischaracterizing


Dear Mr. Kouby,

I must take exception to your regular mischaracterizing of concepts and to bringing into this discussion negative associations that do not apply. For starters, let us hear no more of holocaust revisionism.

Secondly, while space lasers are a form of directed energy weapons, they are not the only form of DEW. Thus, constantly referring to DEW as space lasers amounts to being an underhanded argumentive technique. DEW can be land-based. In fact, my contention is that DEW was "spire-based" within the towers. Please argue that point.

Third, I do not argue nukes except to the extent that a milli-nuclear reactor (small; portable) may have been the energy source, because it can explain radiation measurements, unquenchable hot-spots, the carting in of fresh dirt to put on the fires, and the first responder ailments. Etc.

Fourth, I do not bring up holograms. This is completely separate from video fakery. But if I've learned anything from 9/11 battles, when my opponents constantly bring something up in their discussion with a ridiculing tone, it usually pays to investigate and that their wave-off of some topic is really a wave-on: land here. Thus, I suppose looking into holograms might be a worthwhile endeavor. Personally, I don't think holograms would have been necessary. They already had control of the media and computers that could generate pixels of aircraft that, given 17 seconds transmission delay, had plenty of time for the one and only semi-live shot. All other images of planes had more time to be composed. Thus, live witness testimony would quickly be tampered with and tainted once those witnesses got home and saw "the big picture" on the telly of the pixels of planes repeatedly hitting the towers.

Fifth, jello bringing down the towers or cow farts or nose boogers... these are examples of outrageous theories. DEW, nukes, holograms, and TV fakery are not. In fact, they are very real, very operational, and very plausible.

Dr. Wood has a textbook that you don't reference. September Clues has a whole series of videos that you don't reference. These are my foundation and very easy for you to at least "get on the same page" about even if we disagree.

Calling the DEW and TV fakery "stupid" theories does not prove them as such. In fact, such belittling language doesn't prove anything at all except your biases. And given that I'm sure you've seen Superman fly and Spiderman swing from a web at the movies or on the telly and that you admit that lasers exist (in principle) since project Star Wars, you will have to do more to PROVE that they do not concord with the evidence and eyewitness testimony.

DEW can pulverize content, and in a more focused and aimed fashion than nukes and without the logistic headaches of nano-thermite. This isn't to say that nano-thermite wasn't deployed; the point is that to achieve the observable overkill pulverization effects ~and~ the duration of underground fires, massive massive massive overkill amounts were required.

Eyewitness testimony? Come on. It has validity, but can easily be tainted. See above.

Yes, please do look into propaganda, disinformation, and most of all how disinformation agents work. The smear has been applied to DEW via personal attacks even in AlienScientists video against a person -- Dr. Wood -- not against specifics in her premise. Likewise, they attempt to take September Clues out of consideration without addressing the totality of the video evidence presented. They prop up nano-thermite as the end-all/cure-all answer.

At least I admit the areas where I'm a duped useful idiot and am sincere in getting those potentially erroneous beliefs corrected by evidence, science, and rational discussion. I get the impression, Mr. Kouby, that you don't even know what you've been duped by.

Herr der Elf : the best core evidence


Dear Mr. NightHawk,

We had the first 10 years to present the best core evidence with the people from their respected fields there to back up the claims in a professional manner. These efforts were fought on many fronts in many ways, like with kooky, crazy, loony labels.

I am no longer satisfied with such half-way and halting measures, particularly when evidence isn't addressed and when the truth is deeper. Know your audience is the mantra in many areas where information is presented. It was shock-and-awe that numbed the masses and got us to accept the USA PATRIOT Act, Homeland Security, TSA nude pictures or groping, rendition, torture, wars (with DU weapons), drone attacks, and now even killing without trial or conviction of an American abroad.

The awareness of the extent of the 9/11 ruse might be the shock-and-awe required to get people motivated, and to see that Wall Street and the bankers are connected, and to do something about it.

I found AlienScientist's videos impressive, except for the unprofessional bit that inserts the "disinfo agent" label above a picture of Dr. Wood. Why such special treatment?

In defending her, I don't hold her up like the Madonna Maria; I acknowledge that some of her evidence and analysis might be flawed. However, the sweeping manner in which most try to dismiss her without even attempting to gleam nuggets of truth from amidst what they consider disinfo (without proving even the disinfo claim on individual nuggets) is rather telling. In fact, it is a flag. Not a wave-off flag; a wave-on, land-here flag.

This thread is about Dr. Judy Wood - 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect. Am I the only one who has her book and has read it? How come at least two of you are trying to side-step it auspiciously under the guise of not core 9/11 evidence, while Mr. AlienScientist has given only a little to validate or invalidate anything in the thread title? Her textbook is 500 pages long with 500 images that in cases of WTC destruction are correlated to map positions precisely to give the big picture to those of us not from NYC. I forget how many chapters she has, but scant few of them are even close to being fodder for debunking outright. (She was pretty crafty and delayed making conclusions and analysis until later, instead spending time building up evidence.)

You have other threads and other forums to wake up the masses using core things like 100 feet (2.25 seconds) of free-fall in WTC-7 , and I'll support you in such endeavors.

This thread is about Dr. Judy Wood - 9/11 and the Hutchison Effect and should be focused on that. Stupid comments aren't going to cut it. Diving in objectively and with an open-mind is the only way. We need to separate the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

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.

Herr der Elf : Cars Igniting


Dear Mr. Kouby,

I apologize for the scattered approach in which I respond.

When you recall testimony of magically exploding cars it would be nice to provide said testimony. I must admit I've never come across that kind of stuff.

Google with the double quotation marks: "Patricia Ondrovic"

You should get lots of search results to go search through. The first link in my search results from a Killtown interview is very revealing. Search within that interview for "door" and you'll get:

KT: You talked about the cars blowing up in your WTC Task Force interview, correct?

PO: Yes.

KT: Can you estimate how many vehicles blew up around you?

PO: At least three and some were on fire as I was running by. I was still on the south side of Vesey running west. The burning cars were between my ambulance and about the middle of the 6 World Trade where the lobby doors were at.

KT: Where you running on the street, or up the sidewalk?

PO: Up the sidewalk.

KT: When these vehicles blew up, was it kind of like what you would see in the movies where the vehicle pops up in the air when it explodes with a fireball coming out?

PO: I remember parts flying off -- I think I got hit with a car door. I remember they were also on fire, but I don't specifically recall the movie type fireball, but there was a loud bang as the door flew off the one car I was running past.

You'll find the entire interview and other interviews with her (and others) a deep rabbit hole and fascinating reading.

Although you malign Dr. Wood about what you think she claims in her textbook, the reality is that she points out a lot of dots that individually are hard to repute and only implies that some of those dots might be connected. She rarely draws definitive conclusions, because that's not her job. Her job is to plant the seeds for objective readers to water and harvest if they bear good fruit.

To go down the DEW rabbit hole does not require blind faith in the whaskily wabbit dangling the carrot in front of its entrance. My views on the subject are a hybrid, whereby I've mined what I consider important nuggets of truth and left others out.

Part of the mastery of making 9/11 big is that we feeble minded humans are all too eager to find simple unifying solutions to describe everything. "If it was X on building A, then it was most likely X on building B, C, and D. No need to consider Y or Z as possibilities."

For example, the concept of separating the destructive mechanism from its energy source is an important one to remain objective about. Of course, it is easy to get sucked into "free energy" from Hurricane Erin that Dr. Wood's covers in a very late chapter and then assume this powered either a space-based laser or Tesla coils on the ground. You and I dismiss space-lasers on WTC-1, 2 and 7, because clearly the destruction originated within the towers. But what about the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of WTC-4 main edifice at a neat line with its North Wing? Could these have been space-based lasers?

Going back to the towers, I still champion what I called "spire-based DEW", making reference to the spire of building structure that remained standing for a few seconds after the building around it was turned to dust. I speculate that this supported for a period the actual DEW device for the upper levels, whereby its destructive energies were aimed away from this supporting spire. (The spire is one of the contributing reasons why I no longer champion milli-nukes to account for pulverization in the early phases of demolition, because milli-nukes would have been hard to contain and control and wouldn't have neglected pulverizing spires.)

Where did DEW gets its energy? Here again I dismiss the valid dots of Hurricane Erin as a distant energy source and speculate that milli-nuclear reactors elsewhere within the towers powered them. Such reactors would then account for many of the destructive features and aftermath that I had previously attributed to milli-nuclear weapons, such as measured high radiation levels, 1st responder ailments, energy fields escaping the steel structure, unquenchable hot spots, etc.

They might have been able to use the building's own wiring or newly installed wiring (during the weekends when the towers had power down periods) to get power from the energy source to the DEW device. Interesting that to a certain degree, Patricia Ondrovic's testimony regarding what she observed in the lobby of WTC-6 supports this.

KT: You mentioned you were running west on Vesey Street, what happened after that?

PO: I just kept running. I was aware there were other people running as well. After passing the cars on fire, I was trying to find someplace safe. I tried to run into the lobby of 6 World Trade, but there were federal police -- maybe 4 to 6 of them -- standing in the open doorways. As I tried to run in, they wouldn't let me, waving me out, telling me "you can't come in here, keep running." As I turned to start running west again, I saw a series of flashes around the ceiling of the lobby all going off one-by-one like the X-mass lights that "chase" in pattern. I think I started running faster at that point.

KT: Did you hear any "popping" sounds when each of these flashes in the WTC 6 lobby were going off?

PO: Yes, that part was like a movie. The pops were at the same time as the flashes.

In my hybrid speculation, I take this to mean the high electromagnetic fields of the energy source induced high currents in neighboring buildings' wiring causing things like exploding lightbulbs.

On to other topics: Yes, explosions were heard, although control of the media has given us in cases multiple versions of the same (exact) footage but with differing manipulated sound tracks, because -- as we saw from NIST -- the resulting lower decibel signature was to be used to lead us away from such conclusions.

I even speculate that explosives were used. Just not exclusively.

Explosives are like a hammer; they can get the job done. But when you have other types of tools in your toolbox and the job requires it, no sense holding back the sledge hammer or jack hammer.

Your second argument seems to be about line of sight?
Wouldn't that apply to explosions as well?

My argument about line-of-sight referenced the EM fields and how they might have slipped through window slits, been projected onto vehicles, induced high Eddy currents in steel causing high temperatures and fires for combustible things touching such metal. When blocked or shaded in whole or in part by buildings or objects, such EM fields would explain anomalous burn patterns. They also account for flipped vehicles and why things with metal content were torched.

Line-of-sight does not apply to explosions. First and foremost, explosions would have to have some visible projectile to cause the damage at some distance. The projectiles under the force of gravity would arc and be visible. They would induce physical damage upon impact before transferring any fires to the vehicle. Projectiles would be left over in many cases.

Now if we assume that nano-thermite was in the dust cloud that rolled over things and reacted with metal, we have contrary evidence of too many things that didn't react with flames. The dust cloud represents in many ways cooling of whatever energetic particles it once had.

On the topic of the 2nd airplane and video fakery.

So true, so true; we do not know the exact nature of what allegedly hit the towers except that it wasn't the reported commercial aircraft due the various contradictions with its operational ratings. A suped up military plane painted to be a commercial aircraft could explain the velocities, I suppose. For me, I still find it hard to swallow that the pixels of the tail of the aircraft would enter the towers at the same speed it passed through air given that the body of the aircraft to which it was attached would have been massively decelerating and deforming upon impact with the tower.

On a second note, when I realize someone has lied to me (ie doctored footage in september clues, repeated use of logical fallacies, selective footage,...) I tend to not believe that source of information. Then again I might be strange.

You imply rather starkly that September Clues has lied to you via doctoring of footage, logical fallacies, and selective footage. Your opinion. Might even be my opinion on certain things, but not the whole package. I find those trying to debunk September Clues are more guilty of selective footage and logical fallacies than the accused. I find more disturbing their trend to sweep everything away -- a whole body of work -- if they think (or hype) some individual aspect as being wrong.

You can't have such a "zero-tolerance policy" with people or disinformation. For the sake of discussion, let's assume a lie was foisted on you that you discovered. It doesn't mean that you dismiss the source. What it means is that you can no longer be lazy and trusting; you have to get anal and validate each contention on its own merits. You have to mine the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

The fact is with 9/11, disinformation is the best source of information. The trick is in the data mining for nuggets of truth and validating/invalidating things on their own. All too often weak arguments are presented against 9/11 again and again (e.g., "it would have had to have been a vast conspiracy that for sure would have leaked;" "3000 innocent people died and it could have been you in that plane;" "I refuse to believe that our wonderful freedom-loving and flag-wearing leaders would authorize such an autrocity;" "space-lasers and holograms, what rot?") Yet when the arguments are pursued in earnest, they reveal much. Maybe too much and what they were trying to hide in plain sight by making light of it. (The Gulf of Tonkin was a false-flag to get us into Vietnam; Pearl Harbor was allowed; vast conspiracies happen and can be maintained, sometimes in plain sight. Did 3,000 real people die? Or were there significant numbers of simVictims? The tactics of the wars foisted on us show what those flag-wearing leaders are capable of authorizing.)

Isn't there a high-level disinformation strategy regarding the best way to control the opposition is to lead it? How about the tactic to become the expert in some area of research based on some (leaked?) nugget of truth and to establish a legend as a 9/11 truther, and then at an appointed time shoot yourself or the research a hole in the foot to thereby discredit the whole genre?

If you want to say that work of Dr. Wood or Mr. Shack (September Clues) are examples of disinformation, I'll probably be marching behind you in the band, providing the nuggets of truth are separated from the dross of disinformation. Any attempt to take out of action whole genres based on one or two perceived instances of dishonesty is no different than judging books by their covers, people by the color of their skin, etc.

Here's something I discovered the other day that may not even be in September Clues. It is a YouTube link to 9/11 Helicopter Video (not broadcasted on TV)

The money shot for me is around 2:50 just before the 2nd plane appears. I don't have the tools or expertise to point out glitches in the pixel rendition. Here's my observation though.

The camera crew (or computer) had orders to film the towers burning. The center of its focus was the alleged 1st plane's impact hole and fire. The flying platform would drift requiring adjustment to keep the towers centered horizontally.

However, when other moving objects come close to being in frame, the camera software (or operator) was aware enough to pan a little left. It catches nicely a very small helicopter that at such true distances without magnification would have been difficult of human eyes to register. Yet something did while it was still out of frame in order for the camera to pan left in preparation to catch it. With true computer efficiency, the camera maintains its vertical centering of the towers, which is why the moving helicopter into the frame didn't necessitate zooming out or panning down in order to center the helicopter's path.

While the camera software (or operator) is busy capturing a tiny helicopter of the left, all of a sudden a massive and unmistakable plane comes into frame on the right. Human operators astute enough to notice the small helicopter, would have spotted the many-times-larger plane, had it existed as anything besides pixels inserted later. Same is true for computer operations of the camera. The plane's motions were not detected by the camera's software, because the plane didn't exist.

The fact that the camera did not immediately zoom out (slightly), pan down, or re-frame the picture vertically to compensate for the plane coming in lower than its centered view to me indicates it was a dumb computer (or a very inattentive operator). Adjustments to the framing come later (like 2:21), but in the form of following the moving mushroom cloud up. Even its zoom-out at 3:25 does not pull into frame the impact level of the alleged 2nd plane.

The old saying goes: "To error is human. To really foul things up requires a computer."

The footage was not aired on television because the pre-programming of the computer's cameras on where the alleged 2nd plane was to hit and when was too suspicious... And poorly done. The real helicopter flying into view confused its software. The only way it should not have zoomed out and been aware of the much larger aircraft approaching would have been if the plane was inserted as pixels later.

Herr der Elf : looking for nuggets of truth in known disinformation


I don't see the point in looking for nuggets of truth in known disinformation material.

Dear Mr. Kouby,

Evidently you missed my line: "Disinformation is often the best source of information when it comes to conspiracies, providing you separate the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation." Disinformation is laid on a solid foundation of truth, some of which is otherwise unknown to the public and purposely leaked to give "Maverick" credibility to the source. Without the foundation of truth, who is going to champion it and make any meaningful traction with the public?

I'm quite happy with the nano-thermite explanation and, quite frankly, don't understand the point of wasting time debating a theory that is logical, has evidence and, most of all, very big coincidences between NIST, nano-thermite, points of impact of the planes, owner's of the bureaus impacted, and probably the most eloquent coincidence: ownership of the security firms by close friends/family of the Bush government.

Then why are you wasting everyone's time debating? Why are you participating in this forum about Dr. Wood, if you aren't objectively going to go there with an open-mind and all you can seem to do is dismiss vastly important concepts that you fail to research and grasp?

From an early posting of yours, you wrote:

When you recall testimony of magically exploding cars it would be nice to provide said testimony. I must admit I've never come across that kind of stuff.

After I provide you with a link that is just the entrance to one rabbit hole on the subject, you conclude:

I still stand by my opinion that without an enormous amount of new evidence, nothing points to more out of the ordinary an explanation than "slightly better explosives" ie. nano-thermite probably combined with another type of explosive.

I am a bit flabbergasted at your posting. All of your postings, as a matter of fact.

It case you didn't realize it, 1400 vehicles were destroyed on 9/11. Nano-thermite cannot explain this. Ms. Ondrovic's testimony is one of many.

On the following two links to Dr. Judy Wood's website relating to toasted cars, ignore for now text like "The Star Wars Beam Weapons" and "Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)". Just consider the evidence.

On the first link, search (or scroll down to) the series of images beginning with the label "Figure toast1" and going to "Figure toast 8." In particular, study "toast4" (re-posted below).

The dust cloud, according to you, supposedly contained active thermite which reacts with metal. The dust covers everything left to right in the picture, yet not all vehicles covered by dust burned. In fact, the ones on fire happen to have been in line-of-sight with the towers. Coincidence?

The second link shows large numbers of torched vehicles on West Broadway just North of the WTC in many cases before WTC-7 was imploded, like below.

Pay attention to the green leaves on the trees.

I must be as dumb as a brick, because to me all your arguments don't point to DEW weapons or anything exotic. That seems to me to be a leap you make between the data and what you want to hear ( ie. a car explodes "strangely" .

I will pass on the opportunity to expound upon your comment regarding bricks and intelligence.

Turn this puppy around. You say: "I'm quite happy with the nano-thermite explanation." Therefore, when data in the form of 1,400 destroyed vehicles with locations quite some distance away and eye-witness accounts is presented, you fail to make any leap at all into trying to explain it.

FTR, the highly traumatised witness did not have to see the cause of the vehicle explosion, and in the case of electromagnetic fields could not have seen. The fact that the cars exploded at all is suspicious. So, according to you, in addition to vast overkill amounts of thermite getting planted in the towers in a logistics nightmare to account for the massive energy sink of pulverization, on the morning of 9/11, the perps took the time to plant as a mere distraction plus or minus one thousand four hundred individual explosives in vehicles owned and driven by individuals that for the most part arrived for work starting at around 6 a.m. and for the emergency at 9 a.m.? You don't think that would get noticed?

After reading Patricia's interview I've got a few problems with it. She apparently contradicts herself about how she reacted to the explosion of the tower, the first time saying she didn't see anything else than everyone running towards her and then started running, the second time stating that she was knocked over by the shock wave of an explosion while putting her stretcher into the vehicle and that she thought the explosion came from WTC5, then got up and started running...
And I can't help but think you'd remember if you were hit by a car door but still had the energy to get up and continue running ahead of everyone.

Give us a break, Mr. Kouby. You are splitting hairs over unimportant issues. Case in point. Maybe the explosion did come from WTC-5. This is what happend to WTC-5.

The fact of the matter is that this highly traumatised witness provides a rough time-line as to when certain vehicles exploded. Although she personally saw maybe half a dozen burst into flames, before the dust had settled helicopters captured on film dozens of other vehicles much further away.

So I still have to stick by my opinion that that piece of witness testimony is not reliable.

You are entitled to your opinions, Mr. Kouby, both about this witness's testimony and about the intelligence level of bricks.

Herr der Elf : "You Just Don't Understand"


Dear Mr. Nicolas,

Those aditional interviews were strange, yes indeed. Dr. Fetzer is a bulldozer in his opinions and actively voicing them... even over other people (exhibited here and many places). Dr. Wood is more in her head nerdy who has to struggle to overcome her natural introvert tendencies to speek coherently on the radio, particularly when she has to downshift her knowledge to fit the gears of the audience.

According to Dr. Wood later in the interview, Dr. Fetzer threatened Dr. Wood three years prior to the radio interview regarding going into the topics of her book, DEW, et. al. Don't know the nature of the threat. Resulted in them not communicating in three years.

Depending on the nature of the threat and the bad blood combined with their dominant personality traits, I can see where Dr. Fetzer would keep hammering and Dr. Wood would just shut up and clam up.

I found Dr. Wood's textbook to be very well done. I find her interviews not quite the same. Certainly much of this is a problem of the format, the interviewer, the medium, and the audience they are aiming at. They always come up short and very odd.

[QUOTE=Nicolas;2717]I know Herr... I was disappointed in the interview too... But the one interview I am posting now is telling. Jim Fetzer called in and pointed out some issues to her and she is not acting logical, but you listen and decide for yourself. Jim is a great researcher on JFK, but his side of the 9/11 false flag event is something new to me too. I will look at his input moving forward. Dr. Judy Wood is acting very odd from my point of view. [/QUOTE]

A book from the early 1990's was called You just don't understand by Dr. Deb Tanner related to communication between men and women, and how communication patterns of the sexes differ. (Helped in my dating.) I was amazed at its applicability.

In a nutshell and very generalized, men can have a heated disagreement on some matter X, and then can turn around in a matter of minutes on different matters Y and Z be calm and rational and even have a beer. They can compartmentalize and set aside things: not always, not every man, but as a general trend. On the other hand, if women disagree on X so heatedly, they are dead to each other on all other topics Y and Z; there will be no drinking of beer or tea without first handling properly the emotional baggage. Thus when a man and a woman disagree on X, don't expect sex or fruitful discussion on matters Y or Z, and expect both to not understand what is bugging the other or how to fix it.

Applying this to Fetzer and Wood, Fetzer has compartmentalized and set aside (and maybe forgotten the emotion of) their past disagreement (or threats). For Dr. Wood, it is as fresh today as it was three years ago.

Herr der Elf : planned ambush of Dr. Wood


Dear Mr. Nicolas,

Hear, hear. Well written. I agree with most everything to within a few insignificant degrees. The one outlier, you wrote:

[quote]That aside, I did not think that the video the Alien Scientist needed to be tagged by Dr. Wood for any You Tube violation, that I think was uncalled for. It is just my opinion that anyone who spent that much effort and time into her conclusions would rather fight for her beliefs than throw a flag and try to get a violation. I felt she should reach out to Jeremy, join this forum and lets start the debate with her. [/quote]

I disagree. AlienScientist verges on substance in his video. It is a worthy endeavor. It has me teetering a little. Except for the personal attack via the "disinfo agent" label on Dr. Wood's picture. Civil society and civil debate do have their conventions and in cases rules. I would hope that AlienScientist updates his video by extending an unlabeled image of Dr. Wood to replace the short section that I consider libel. Maybe AlienScientist will add more information to ground his supposition without stooping to that cheap trick. Considering the entire context of his video from beginning to end and its serious handling of things, that libeling label in most incongruous and out-of-character. It doesn't belong, isn't needed, and exposes an agenda. Thus, I don't blame her for crying foul to a violation of law. (In my state, it would be considered criminal libel and a federal felony with heavy penalties.)

Dr. Wood gets attacked left-and-right. In fact, the very radio program you posted has all the markings of a planned ambush of Dr. Wood by Dr. Fetzer with a conspiratorial radio host. Doesn't surprise me that her breath would be taken away and she would be speechless.

Dear Mr. Kouby,

Kudos to your effort, as well, but in a 180 degree sense. Pay attention that the one fault in your education -- namely, a weak science background -- doesn't limit your range of thinking and conclusions further, because certainly your lack of objectivity and easy dismissal of the pictorial evidence already puts it on display.

I told you to focus on the pictures and ignore the text, yet the text is the gopher hole you dive into. Your response tells me that I should let you go in alone. Thus, I will leave most of it alone and let you think you knocked the evidence down. Latter-day lurkers will probably disagree with those beliefs.

Regarding Figure 76 on

[quote]The whole car is squashed and destroyed, how the hell does pointing to one bit of it make this into evidence of DEWs?[/quote]

Figure 76 comes after figure 75, and both are from the Pentagon. A spurious piece of evidence possibly inserted by Dr. Wood either as an intelligence test or as some low-lying straw for a DEW strawman to be knocked down. You should have ignored it.

From Dr. Wood:

[quote]Figure toast3. The vehicle fires increase in strength as sunlight begins to emerge through the clearing dust cloud.[/quote]

From Mr. Kouby:

[quote]Figure toast 3-4 => So, here she implies that the sunlight is actually having an effect on the vehicle fires...
I, with my non-scientific mind, would have thought that the sunlight simply enabled us to see more of the smoke..[/quote]

I, with my scientific mind, understand Dr. Wood's statement as a reference to time and to oxygenated conditions on the ground. As the dust settled (a period of time), not only did it let more sunlight in, but also more air and the dust no longer choked the fires.

Latter-day lurkers will judge your statements as deliberate spin.

[quote]Interesting, I don't remember talking about the dust cloud...

What I quite clearly said though is that all these photographs and witness testimonies tell us that there were EXPLOSIONS. I still don't see anything pointing do DEWs.[/quote]

Yes, we agree about there being explosions. Where we disagree is the radius of destruction of such explosions (at the towers, at WTC-5, at WTC-6) and their inability to account for the evidence in the following pictures given an assumed fixed center point. The Post Office on the left, WTC-5 is on fire at the end of the street, and WTC-7 is on the right close to WTC-5


Explosions are not selective in their heat and blast waves. They would torch tree leaves and branches (and paper) more readily and rapidly than buses. They would knock out building windows and street lights. They would not focus on iron based metals and ignore aluminum, plastic, and glass. They would kill humans.

Electromagnetic waves generated by an energy source are a different matter. They are selective in all of those things. Depending upon the anomalous nature of the source (like cold-fusion), they might even have peaks and valleys in the magnitude of EM waves hitting items, in addition to blocking and shading effects within the line-of-sight radiation.

My apologies. I shouldn't have gone on as long as I did pointing out the low-hanging strawmen. I really wanted your statements to stand and (then) fall more or less on their own.

Herr der Elf : the treatment Dr. Wood gets


Dear Mr. Nicolas and Mr. Kouby,

If I have led you astray or misrepresented things, my sincere apologies. Sometimes I have positions built up from previous 9/11 encounters that don't really apply but are instructive platforms to get readers to think outside their comfort zone.

I defend Dr. Wood not because I believe her word-for-word (I don't), but because the treatment she gets indicates that her detractors have not read (let alone understood) her words to know what to believe and what not to. I have been trained from an early age to look for the good (in people, situations, etc.); rarely are people as sinister as the rhetoric makes them out to be.

Yes, Mr. Kouby, I did point you to some links on Dr. Wood's website, but I said to ignore the words particularly the ones hinting at a conclusion, like the very headers of the pages that say "Space-Lasers" and whatnot. Why? Most of her website hasn't been updated since 2006 when (I believe) the student responsible for it was killed in a mysterious fashion. It is almost as if she puts "Star Wars Lasers" into the titles of her web pages so that she will be labeled "bat-shit crazy" and therefore protected from deathly consequences. Killing the crazies is both bad publicity and bad form, because it elevates the theories of the dead crazy to a level of serious public attention that backfires. So, she's found a way to sneak the evidence into our thinking without writing her own death warrant.

Dr. Wood has scant little evidence and deductive reasoning to support the titles of her web pages. Maybe on purpose. Because the pictorial evidence on her pages (like the destroyed vehicles, their locations, etc.) is the likes that few other 9/11 websites explores, contemplates, and speculates about. This is its inherent value; not the weakly defended titles.

Her textbook is in an entirely different league. It is a quality piece of work, very instructive, and not a rehash of her website. Here, too, Dr. Wood has been craftier than her website or interviews. She tries to delay supposition as long as possible after presenting well research, well annotated, well cross-referenced evidence. In many ways, lots of data points that are hard to refute individually, and few connecting trend lines with definitive statements about what happened. That is both its weakness and its strength. Certainly it gives her weasel room while at the same time allowing her textbook the opportunity to open readers' minds to other options.

I've mined lots of nuggets of truth from her textbook (and website) and melted them into my own bat-shit crazy hypothesis for what I think happened. I'll be happy to be proven wrong and steered a new direction. However, Mr. Kouby, I've been tainted by suppressed and ignored evidence provided mostly by Dr. Wood, Mr. Shack (September Clues), and the Anonymous Physicist such that explosives and nano-thermite alone won't satisfy me, because they don't satisfy the physics/energy equations, they don't address all of the evidence.

Spire-based DEW devices powered by cold-fusion or milli-nuclear reactors with redundant nano-thermite for the towers is my current position inspired by Dr. Wood but not Dr. Wood's view.

Herr der Elf : spire-based DEW


I had never heard those interview and had always worked through the web pages on my own. My heart goes pitter padder with love, and I feel duped all over by DEW.

Alas, my hybrid, spire-based DEW. DEW has the advantage that it can be aimed away from the supporting spire. Then a clean-up DEW aimed up from the bottom microwaves the residual concrete on the spire.


MOre Spire-based DEW...
[img][/img] [img][/img] [img][/img] [img][/img] [img][/img]


Bill Biggart's last images...

We see the damage of WTC-2 on WTC-3. I love the three side-wall chunks that fell and planted them in the ground like steel trees. They weren't dustified.

WTC-3? Doesn't have enough of WTC-1 to account for the totality of the destruction. It should have gouged out sections like WTC-2, but not completely leveled it... and the WTC-4 main edifice.

If the corporate media would not have been towing the Bush Administration fairy tail as if they were branches of the same military industrial complex, by golly the public might have learned about WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 and how they could be on fire in raging ways from the inside with insufficient "flaming debris" from the towers on the roof to account for it all.

I thank Dr. Wood again for pulling the images together into one place.

Herr der Elf : Proof of Laser Technology


Dear Mr. Kouby,

It would serve you well to research the background of Dr. Jenkins and what he does for a living. Last I checked, he works in the very realm of high energy and advanced concepts that he tries to debunk from Dr. Wood. Yes, he is slicker and more articulate than Dr. Wood. I find myself agreeing with the following assessment:

[quote]Greg Jenkins' PhD thesis may have been supported by the NSA as per the following links:

[URL=""]Annual Report:[/URL] and [URL=""]here[/URL] and [URL=""]here[/URL] (archived [URL="../../pdf/Jenkins_au_prb.pdf"]here[/URL] and [URL="../../pdf/Jenkins_ybco_prl.pdf"]here[/URL]).
where the following acknowledgment can be found:
[quote]"This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR-9705129 and by funding from the NSA."[/quote]

On to another related subject, here are some videos that help prove directed energy weapons (DEW or MTHEL) are not science fiction pipe dreams.

I picked up some nuggets of truth that help steer my wild-ass speculations regarding DEW and no-planes. Something the videos point out is the flash of light that precedes the alleged aircraft in all angles of the video. In a past 9/11 life when I was being duped by "pods on planes," the flash had another significance for a laser guided missile.

However, in my newer duped incarnation, I speculate:

- No real planes, but pixels of planes run on the television.
- DEW from two distant points targeted the towers, launched their rays, blew a hole in the towers, and ignited thermite that those artists had artistically planted in the towers to resemble the outline of a plane. Observe from the video how precise such things would be.
- The flash of the DEW was used by computers to time and insert in reverse sequence the pixels of the planes.
- DEW devices within the towers. Observe from the video the flexibility of the rotating head. It would be no problem for it to focus its rays above and then swivel to focus below while missing the spire that supported them.

The second part has a snippet that helps prove video fakery. At 4:10, you'll see the dive bombing plane. When this footage is compared with other footage, it doesn't jive. If there was a real plane, all footage should show the same flight path. This is one of the nuggets that proves practically all of the footage of planes false and nothing more than pixels.

9/11 Proof of Used Laser Weapons Part 1

9/11 Proof of Used Laser Weapons Part 2

9/11 Proof of Used Laser Weapons Part 3

Plane flying so low? in above

Herr der Elf : state of paralysis


Dear Mr. ApteryxOZ,


Speaking for my own humbleness, I'm in a state of paralysis ... or as Mr. Kouby so eloquently writes without proof "shapeshifting reptilians controlling ...thoughts with laser beams on the moon."

We can't even get the masses to contemplate what was done in a rational manner as if they were in the National Guard helicopter that flew around the WTC several days after 9/11 and filmed the extend of the destruction and it being excess of what gravity could account for.

Were this the case, too many elements of the how it was done will come crashing down at their feet and ultimately and painfully destroy their world view. Things like the wisdom and moral standing of leadership who went along with, promoted, and capitalized on the agenda draped in patriotic flags. Things like the objectivity and intelligence of mass media, and the true nature of advertising, sales, and marketing to inspire lust in material things, war, and torture. Things like just courts and checks-and-balances.

My paralysis is that when the what and subsequently the how aren't tackled, then nothing about the why can find fertile soil to germinate. And in an actions and consequences way, inactions or lack of thought aren't going to consequently flourish into anything that can change how our world is knee-jerk manipulated down, down, down.

Personally, I think the federal govt has proven itself out of control and unrepresentative of the people. It would make more sense for it to simply go away, and for various states to band together into more perfect unions in four or five smaller regions. The US Constitution could be adopted by each region as a starting point, but with each region having more flexibility to enact necessary changes that the former USA could not. They could change the laws that give corporations more rights than individuals, that allow them unlimited monetary influence into elections, that empower "central banks", that institutionalize big-pharma over holistic/natural remedies, ... I could go on. The federal govt has so many knee-jerk and misguided laws and programs. As for national defense? What would the United States of California have to fear from the United States of the South, or the East, or Mid-West, or Canada, or Mexico? Why would any of these regions feel compelled to raise armies that did more than police their own shores and entry points? Why would any state or region send troops abroad on anything other than humanitarian or peace keeping missions and in numbers no greater than, say, individual Western European countries?

Yep, the box that we should be thinking outside of is United States of America. We should vote it out of existence.

Herr der Elf : From what little I've seen of haarp


[QUOTE=EBTX;5034]If you think that haarp will direct enormous amounts of energy from here to there all over the globe ... you'd have to quantify that first. To me it looks like nonsense.

From what little I've seen of haarp, it's about directing energy of communications only. Their setup is a grid of wires by means of which they send signals and bounce them off the ionosphere ... or something like that.[/QUOTE]

Dear Mr EBTX,

The operative phrase from what you wrote is "from what little [you've] seen of HAARP."

Yet you've gleamed from the nonsense that HAARP is "about directing energy of communications." Tacking on "only" to this is rather disenguous. Ask yourself, "what is the energy of communication and how can this be directed by bouncing them off the ionosphere?" True, communication might be encoded into one's and zero's, but on what wave of energy do they ride and gets bounced?

What happens with the energy used to give sufficient magnitude for a communication's one is magnified? Is held? Or has its string of zero's and one's strobed at a particular resonant frequency?

The rest of your posting is dismissive of HAARP "from what little [you've] seen of HAARP." Most strange. Certainly you demonstrate how little indeed you know, as if arguing from a position of ignorance were the same as arguing from a position of strength.

If you are sincere in your study for truth, go here to this thread on "The Meaning of HAARP."

Herr der Elf : HAARP research should become transparent


Dear Mr. EBTX,

You dismiss HAARP because you suppose it requires thick wires and a larger array (to be destructive, disruptive, and anything beyond communication)? You speculate about large amounts of energy.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that your knowledge of not-thick-enough wires thus not being able to supply vast amounts of energy is accurate and isn't undermined by power cables that you can't see or aren't aware of from your remote Internet location.

Consider briefly semiconductor transitors of many different kinds. The premise is that by supplying a relatively small current (or voltage) to a base or gate, you can then control a much larger current or voltage.

How much energy hits the earth's atmosphere from the sun and bounces off? If you could insert even a small amount of energy into the ionosphere, would that be like a transitors base (or gate) that allows you to tap into much larger energy sources that were previously bounced? I don't know, and admit I am freely speculating, just as you speculate that you know the true energy requirements of HAARP and that the wires you've seen represent the totality of incoming power conduits.

In another posting, you mention chemtrails. It is rumored that aluminum is among the particulates being dumped into the atmosphere. Aluminum is conductive. Do criss-crossing chemtrails help direct HAARP energy all over the planet? Or do the resulting aluminum clouds act like capacitors storing energy from the sun that, again, HAARP's "gate charge" taps into and controls?

Again I speculate freely "outside-the-box". Let us not forget that control of weather has long been a military goal to be added to its arsenals, only with the plausible deniability of extremely bad (or simply unfavorable) weather being "an act of God."

Here's more speculation outside the ball park. Look up resonance and how it can be achieved, by a small trickle of "impulses" timed such that they can harmonically build on the corresponding response from previous impulses eventually becoming a much larger destructive wave. Harmonics are such an important aspect of engineering, Europe has standards for electronic power supplies regarding allowable energy levels out to the 39th harmonic. (Unhandled harmonics can add losses and stresses to transformers and cables; it can result in increased neutral current in 3-phase systems that heats things.) Many of us have seen the old black-and-white footage of a bridge in a storm that got the bridge swaying at its resonant frequency at ever increasing magnitudes until eventually it tore itself apart. Destructive harmonics is an issue in aircraft wing design.

My point is: until such HAARP researchers become transparent on exactly what they are doing, why, and what effects (and side-effects) it has, then your dismissive statements about HAARP are premature (or worse).

Herr der Elf : Everytime you bite on and swallow their bait


Dear Mr. EBTX,

You are working too hard in your efforts to get readers of this forum to dismiss HAARP. That is the most troubling aspect of your postings.

It is certainly within your right to express doubt. Even to say that you have found the presented evidence weak and for you unconvincing. Left at that, I'd be fine, because quite frankly all that you bring up to wave off the power of resonance and other uses for HAARP I find weak and for me unconvincing.

Let's take your concluding wave-off: you doubt that 10 gallons of diesel fuel fed to a diesel generator and some chicken wire could release megatons of energy in an earthquake. You conveniently ignore many real-world examples of lesser energy amounts (transistor gate charge/current) being able to control/trigger much larger energy amounts (current through a transistor and other parts of the circuit.) You don't seem to grasp everything we've been talking about regarding resonance.

Resonance is akin to a morbidly obese fat man on a playground swing. A much smaller and weaker 6 year old could certainly never lift such a man, let alone lift over his head. Yet, with a well timed and persistent nudge, such a youth could get such a weight swinging. With patience and persistance, such well-timed nudges not only can get the fat man swinging well above the youth's head.

I loved your line:
Everytime you bite on and swallow their bait, they win a battle.

I readily admit that I am a duped useful idiot on so many fronts. Alas, what duped me and got me over the edge is evidence, science, and reason that the counter argument (aka Myth-busters) doesn't match, and I sorely am a person who could be duped of the counter point were the evidence, science, and reason of even equal or superior caliber.

Herr der Elf : Every lie of consequence passes through stages of mass acceptance


"Every truth passes through three stage's before it is recognized, in the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is violently opposed in the third it is regarded as self evident". - Arthur Schopenhauer

"Every lie passes through three stages ... in the first it is ridiculed, in the second it is violently opposed, in the third it is tossed in the garbage where it belongs" - EBTX

Dear Mr. EBTX,

You get a point for trying to be clever in drafting an original quotation based on a well-known famous one. However, you lose two points giving you a negative score, because your twist of words has no basis in truth.

When I contemplate the stages of lies like Schopenhauer's stages for truth, here's what I come up with.

Every lie of consequence passes through stages of mass acceptance. In the first stage of a lie presented purposefully by a gifted con artist, many listeners believe, because they have no basis to distrust the source and many elements of known truths surround it.

In the second stage of a lie, the lie can be spotted by experts in the subject matter, although they too may lack the contemplation time or may be caught unprepared to respond to a lie happening in the middle of what they expect would be all truth. They are willing to accept the lie as plausible truth, but place it into a mental queue for later validation testing.

In the third stage of a lie, validation testing starts not just on the lie, but on both its infrastructure and the reliability of the source. Grand lies are unique in that they aren't necessarily supported in the third phase by incongruent little fibs, but through calls to emotions and patriotism.

In the fourth stage of a lie, loose threads in its fabric become exposed and unraveled. distracting emotions and patriotism are neutralized by evidence, science, and reason. The voracity of the con artist in other venues or on other topics can have carry-over consequences. The exposure of supporting disceit, whether of major or minor consequence, chips away at the original lie. "It wasn't the crime but the cover-up."

The fifth stage of a lie begins Schopenhauer's stages for truth, in that those decrying the lie speak the truth and are ridiculed for it while the con-artist gets a medal.

The sixth stage of a lie is a rallying of forces to oppose and discredit those who expose the lie. Consequences are experienced and written about, whose publication serves as a warning to others.

The seventh stage of a lie is that it is self-evidently not possible to be true. Yet many will still cling to the lie, because they were comfortable with it when they thought it was the truth. They do not want their world view rocked, their faith in institutions torn asunder, or their votes/actions questioned and found lacking. They are adverse to change, even when going from a lie to truth. If they have a job, they are in some ways benefiting from propagation of the lies, even if the benefit is reduced to not standing out on either side of a heated political discussion carried out in a job site breakroom and which would otherwise be written into their annual employee evaluation.

The eighth through tenth stages of a lie are to keep the battle away from the lie itself and focused on distraction topics. They keep kicking sand into the eyes of new participants. They hijack commissions, stonewall and slow-walk congressional actions. Whether or not true, they introduce aliens, moon landings, and JFK.

The eleventh stage of a lie is the recognition of a decade and year having passed without seemingly sufficient public venues.

` Herr der Elf

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!"
~ Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 - 1832)

Herr der Elf : spherical particle production


[QUOTE=TheJamesrocket;5264]-Claim: There is no evidence that the formation of iron micro-spheres requires high temperatures.

"Thus we see that MSW ash typically contains up to 21 % Si, 8 % Ca, 8 % Fe, 1 % K and 5 % Al. Spherical particles up to 60 microns in diameter have also been reported in MSW incinerator ash formed when this type of waste material is burned at ~ 1000 deg C:


You truthers need to eliminate all of these naturally occurring spherical particles that are routinely formed in office fires -- particles like your WTC microspheres that are rich in Si, Al, Ca, Fe, and K - before you start suggesting that such particles could only come from thermite, (themate?) combustion residues."

Dear Mr. TheJamesRocket,

Interesting way to frame both the question and the position of the 9/11 Truth Movement by supposing that only thermite (or Thermate) could produce spherical particles.

Yes, I think that super-dooper nano-thermite was deployed, like in blowing bolts holding wall sections together and wiping out the evidence of other destructive mechanisms and/or their energy sources.

But super-dooper nano-thermite does not explain the pulverization of most content within the outer steel frame into fine dust, the under-rubble fires burning for months at extremely high temperatures, anomalous artifacts (like the meteor, and steel I-beams bent into a U-shape), and anomalous damage to vehicles outside the radius of falling debris.

My personal belief is spire-based directed energy weapons with milli-nuclear energy sources. Answers lots of features, including measured radiation levels, the skew to downplay this, first responder ailments, etc.

[QUOTE=TheJamesrocket;5264]-Claim: Where can I see the NFPA criticize the NIST report? They issued their own reports and articles on the subject.
And there very clearly was an accelerant used... jet fuel.

Except that their own reports say that the jet fuel accelerant burned off within the first 10 minutes. Thus, the fires that continued to "rage" were dependent on standard office furnishings often with built in fire retardants. Black sooty smoke equals oxygen starved fires. The heat and uniformity of the fire leading to a sudden onset of gravitational acceleration was not explained adequately by NIST.

In fact, although NIST was charged with a full and complete description of how the towers came down, they tried to pawn off in their early reports (that the 9/11 Commission recycled) the cause for the initiation of the collapse while ignoring all anomalous features happening just after initiation (e.g., squibs, speed of collapse wave through path of greatest resistance, energy-sucking pulverization of content, energy-sucking ejection of content...) They essentially said, because we saw pixels of planes on the telly just like any other Hollywood production, we know what caused it all and we're going to assume that planes were used as well as their jet fuel payloads and we're not even going to investigate seriously other causes for the suddenness, uniformity, and speed of the pulverizing destruction. And damn if the evidence wasn't carted away and recycled before it could be analyzed! How scientific is all that? It is a perfect example of politics pressuring science.

[QUOTE=TheJamesrocket;5264]What is the proof for the assertion that: "The investigation was divided up into parts and a piece was given to each of these engineers to analyse individually?" The NIST report went in to public review for a few weeks and whether or not it was peer reviewed doesn't matter, because it had the entire scientific community scrawl it over. It would've been crucified if it weren't sufficient.

You're overstating your case: "The NIST report ... had the entire scientific community scrawl it over."

The NIST report was found lacking. So much so, that they revisited their theories several times: from jet fuel fires, from pancake collapses, to pile drivers that weren't.

The NIST reports were and still are crucified.

[QUOTE=TheJamesrocket;5264]While we're on the subject of peer review, why did truthers need to sneak their own works past peer review? Where can we hear the people, whose names were just put there without their permission, challenge their report?

Why, you ask? Maybe to create the very red-herring circus side-show distraction that you attempt.

[QUOTE=TheJamesrocket;5264]-Claim: The top floors could not be acting as a piledriver. They weighed 30 times more than what any single lower floor could hold. The lower floors did slow the collapse to 60% free fall acceleration. There's no goddamn way they could slow the collapse down to a halt. Even AE9/11 Truth acknowledges they didn't come down at free fall acceleration, you should too if you ever learnt to use a stopwatch.[/QUOTE]

Here are the points from physics that you missed. In order to come down at 60% of free-fall acceleration, the underlying structure would have had to have its strength reduced by 40% from 100% to 60% -- uniformly.

When content is ejected laterally, that mass can no longer play a role as a pile-driver to keep the collapse accelerating.

When content is ejected laterally at great speed, energy is consumed that cannot be used to keep the collapse accelerating.

When content is destroyed -- neigh, when it is pulverized -- that is a massive energy sink that is consumed and that cannot be re-used to keep the collapse accelerating.

When the upper-portion of a structure is used to destroy/pulverize the lower-portion ala a pile-driver and when the upper and lower portions are composed of the same material, albeit with the lower structure being stronger by design, Newton's Laws of equal-and-opposite re-actions can't be side-stepped. If N is less than the total number of floors divided by 2 and if we ignore observable energy sinks or loss of mass that further reduce the pile driver, the upper N floors of structure could pile-drive at most N floors below the pile-driver at which point all 2N floors would be dust but not necessarily the total number of floors.

For the sake of discussion, if we hold that the initiation of the collapse was inevitable due to the planes and jet fuel (red herring), it does not make inevitable the totality of the collapse through the path of greatest resistance. Even if the upper floors free fell through the distance of, say, 10 empty floors (thanks to the "clearing jet"), the over-design of the lower structure together with known and observable energy sinks (ejection, pulverization) would have halted the collapse or "shucked it" outside the path of greatest resistance into the path of least resistance (e.g., toppled over the side).

Unfortunately for the pile driver "bat-shit crazy theory" is that those aforementioned upper N floors accordian'ed into themselves at 2/3 gravity before the collapse progressed significantly below 110-N (e.g., plane impact) level. Not only was it not acting like a pile driver, but its speed suggests 2/3 of the strength in the upper N floors was suddenly and uniformly removed to achieve this feat.

For those like you, Mr. TheJamesRocket, who so religiously believe the flawed NIST reports and the govt's fairy tale assisted in the telling greatly and continually by a compliant media about 19 hijackers and known hijacked planes circumventing standard operating procedure on the ground for interception for extended periods of time, and their jet fuel crashes causing the observed destruction of the WTC complex (including the robbing of billions in gold from the vaults under WTC-4 and whereby millions of it were recovered -- in a loaded but abandoned truck in the underground tunnels --), I just have one question for you.

Why are you not a Muslim?

I mean, if according to these reports Allah can give us such well-timed coincidences and destruction without adding energy (via explosives or other means), then he has truly proven himself to be the superior God. You should worship him. And in converting to Islam, you should take action against the holy wars waged by the USA against your Muslim brothers in far-off lands.

Herr der Elf : Are you serious


Dear Mr. SnowCrash,

Are you serious with your questions in your Litmus test for Aldwin Marquis, stalker, harasser, liar and defamer of Pentagon witnesses?

Because if you were, you would fix up the errors in you malframed binary entrapment questions.

For example, the leading "Do you understand that..." formation puts the answering binary emphasis on someone's personal understanding. The question should be re-written to put emphasis on whatever is in the original lengthy "that..." dependent clause.

As for the details of the malframement in the lengthy "that..." dependent clauses, I'll not bore you with my analysis except on the first one, where you write:

[QUOTE=SnowCrash;47601]1. Do you understand that, since a plane cannot hit the Pentagon from the north side of the Citgo gas station, any witness who saw the plane impact the Pentagon confirms a flight path south of Citgo?[/quote]

Do you understand that I have personally not read accounts of "witnesses seeing the plane impacting" that did not have margin of error and attention deficits. For example, Do you understand that people driving cars on freeways have to pay attention to their moving vehicle on a highway surrounded by other moving vehicles. Do you understand that how intently they could track an incoming plane through its entire flight path into the building is rare. Do you understand that recent squabbles elsewhere on the internet has brought up the fact that to get to the ground-level hole in the Pentagon, you have to fly down into a recession below highway level. Thus Do you understand that the view of the hole is obscured from most highway level vantage points with respect to the blocking aspects of neighboring lanes of vehicles. Do you understand that cognitive dissonance in witnesses connects the fireball and smoke clouds from a "generator trailer" launched missile to a low-flying plane whose flight path is within a few hundred vertical feet of the timed missile launch and explosion, particularly when pounded home by the MIC media what the OCT fairy-tale that a plane hit the Pentagon. Shock-and-awe, baby, because Do you understand that that could have been you on that alledged commercial flight!

Do you understand that the malframement in your lengthy "that..." dependent clause is to assume "any witnesses saw the plane impact". Do you understand that your title and other questions also have malframement that you could improve.

Yes or no?

Herr der Elf : orb concept has not duped me yet


I am a duped useful idiot on many things. I actively champion September Clues and Dr. Judy Wood, even though both have issues here and there that can be debated (but their entire premises can't be knocked down so easily.) What duped me was both the voracity of the evidence (with scientific foundation) and the weakness/lameness of the counter arguments.

Unfortunately, the orb concept has not duped me yet. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the orb "appears" only in a helicopter shot that neither the pilot nor reporter/passenger noticed until the explosion in WTC-2. Or even more precisely stated, that particular helicopter shot has three and possibly four versions:

#1 No plane or orb or anything flying at WTC-2 is visible. The first indication of anything amiss is the explosion in WTC-2.

#2 Same footage as #1 except that an orb is inserted flying a trajectory into the WTC-2.

#3 The perspective of the towers from an elevated position is maintained (e.g., from the helicopter footage), but the harbor and ground are masked out and made to look like sky. Then the pixel representation of a plane is inserted flying a completely different trajectory.

#4 Same footage as #1/#2 except that more of a plane is fleshed out over the orb.

Before I give my wild-ass speculation on the matter, the overriding salient point is that these clips from the same footage prove that some level of doctored video was undertaken. It doesn't matter which was the original and which was the fake. What matters is that instrumental elements conspired to doctor videos in order to confuse and fool the public. A smoking gun. Thus, not all of 9/11 was what we saw on the telly.

Now for my duped useful idiot wild-ass speculation. I speculate that #1 that showed no plane or orb was the original. The fakers tried to insert a plane into the footage, but due to time constrainsts and other factors, they couldn't get it to look right. Footage #2 with the orb was a proof-of-concept test that they had a plausible trajectory. (Don't know why this footage leaked out, except in instances where truthers promote it as UFO orbs to get the entire 9/11 Truth Movement tarred and feathered as loony, insane, and crazy.) Footage #3 was the fallback position and was released/broadcast. Quick-and-dirty, get rid of the nasty harbor background and photoshop a new reality. September Clues proved the cut-and-paste job from #1 to get #3. Footage #4 that shows pixels of a real plane? Well with time and persistence and the proper video editing tools, Hollywood can get our eyes to believe anything. My understanding is that #4 wasn't even available for September Clues, and makes its entrance onto the scene if for no other reason than to solidify-via-fakery the official story and throw a wrench at those trying to make a case for other video fakery.

Again, however, it doesn't matter whether my speculation about original and fakes is correct. What matters is four different versions from the same perspective proves the concerted effort to get the public to believe in something that wasn't real.

No comments: