Saturday, December 31, 2011

Further Postings of Señor El Once

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : Impossibly risky that amateur video would capture the sudden no-planes explosion?


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

Mr. Shack, regardless of your belief that some of the videos may be compromised, the fact remains that the danger was so great that amateur video would capture the sudden no-planes explosion of WTC2 that such an op would be impossibly risky. I’m not interested in conspiracies of thousands.

Impossibly risky that amateur video would capture the sudden no-planes explosion?

Nonsense. Quite the opposite. It would be impossibly risky to have something real (e.g., missile, military plane, commercial plane but not of the make & model we were told) flown into the towers. This would have all sorts of audio and visual clues to trigger amateurs to turn on their cameras and focus them in a specific direction. It would be very difficult shut down all of these versions, particularly if they deviated from the official story.

Get rid of a real flying object, then what trigger or clue would amateurs have that they should focus their cameras on the towers to catch the explosion at the right time? How would they know which tower, which tower face, etc. would be impacted?

I know from my own video taping experience, most amateurs would get bored inside of the first couple of minutes of training their cameras on the burning tower.

As a side note, professional video from a news helicopter did capture the sudden no-planes explosion of WTC-2. This particular footage has three versions. One shows nothing. One shows an "orb" with background reflecting around it; probably an attempt to fake a plane but was too difficult given the background. The third masked out the background (harbor), replaced it with sky, inserted a plane flying a different path.

Simon Shack had a reasonable request to read the following page thoroughly.

A great point is brought up that various sporting events have hundreds of cameras trained on the action, yet few ever capture the "money shot", like the car crashing. How many amateurs capture the winning touchdown pass, or more importantly, how many capture the antics of players and coaches on the sidelines or on a part of the field where the ball isn't?

P.S. Do you even monitor your gmail email account? If so, why haven't you responded to attempts at off-list correspondence? If you don't monitor it, I have a couple of brief unrelated questions for you. If you've lost my email, I can be reached through Mr. McKee.

Señor El Once : fan of Simon Shack research


Dear Mr. Shack,

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

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

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

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

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

Señor El Once : Good cue for recording


Mr. Good wrote:

You seem to miss the fact that the cue to turn on the video camera was when the first plane hit.

Agreed, the WTC-1 explosion and fire would have been a cue. But five minutes of smoke and fire is about 30 times more than what would be broadcast on the news. On 9/11, we're talking 15 minutes before the "2nd explosion", in addition to cameras being trained on WTC-1, not necessarily WTC-2.

There’s this thing called a tripod, running cameras can be placed on them and require no tending.

Agreed. Except that if you were close, you were at various points running to get a better angle or running for your lives. How many "amateurs" would have the foresight to put a camera on a tripod and leave it running? How many actually did this? If I would have been there with a camera and a tripod, I still would not have used it on the tripod, because I would have found the ground activity many times more interesting.

You overstate your case below.

Most of the amateur video of the second plane impact seems to have been recorded in that manner, and seems to have been shot by people who just shot out the window wherever they happened to be.

First of all, I call your bluff. You say "most of the amateur video of the second plane impact seems to have been recorded [with a tripod]", prove it. Provide the links.

I disagree with that statement. I recall only the "amateur" video from Bob & Bri having a tripod. And even then, they did not capture a flying object. Those crucial (milli-)seconds were edited out, go figure. Bri mentions immediately after the cut "It is a military plane!", but given the other proven editing, this has to be taken with a grain of salt as if it were an over-dub later and/or part of a script.

I suppose I also recall the "tripod amateur" work that was shot through a chain link fence, except that it debunked itself by having both the fence and towers in focus at the same time, a clear indication of a video fakery, which is the main issue: video fakery happened on 9/11. Also, I think the person recording it also was not an "amateur" but a "professional".

In fact, point me at the "amateur videos" that used a tripod to fix the camera on the towers, and I'll bet that September Clues or others have exposed the tell-tale signs of video fakery. (And they also weren't "amateur".)

There is no comparison between catching the south tower blowing up and a sporting event “money shot” that requires a narrow field of view.

Certainly one can compare WTC-2 exploding to a sporting event. WTC-1 fires are like the high-fiving celebratory aftermath of a team scoring a touchdown. Crowd & camera attention is focused there until is diverted to the reactions of the coaches/players on both sidelines or boistrous fans mugging for the cameras in the stands. Arriving fire departments and citizens leaving the building distract from WTC-1 fires. The WTC-2 explosion is like an unexpected fight between the orange vested yardage marker referees in the opposite end-zone. Who would have thought to focus there for that night's sports sound-bite?

A wide-view shot of all of lower Manhattan would (and did) show the airplane approach just fine.

Again you overstate your case and lack proof. Moreover, those very wide-view shots of all of lower Manhattan and the airplane approach were not "just fine". This is apparently the salient point from September Clues and other video fakery analysis that you ignore. Among the errors were being inconsistent with one another with regards to flight paths, not modeling crash physics, and not standing up to slow-motion and backward-play analysis. Some represent miracles of zoom and focus, yet played backwards as a zoom-out don't show a plane in the frame where it should.

If Simon Shack is still monitoring the comments, I am curious to learn his opinion about the (lack of) news coverage of Hurricane Erin that was aimed directly at NYC in the days prior to 9/11, should have hit NYC on 9/11, was just off the coast of NY all day, but was not mentioned at all that morning by most corporate media weather people except for FOX, who said in one broadcast that morning that the hurricane was no longer a concern for NYC.

This non-reporting of a massive hurricane directly on the morning of 9/11 is not only further proof of mass media complicity in 9/11, it represents a clue. Before either tower was affected, why was the reporting the hurricane suppressed?

Here's my wild-ass speculation. HAARP created that hurricane and steered it right at NYC in the days prior to 9/11. On 9/11, they steered it to stop and then moved it away. It needed to be close: (a) Because it was the energy source for the directed energy weapons that microwaved the towers into dust. (b) Because it was plan B to wipe out all of the evidence if major elements of the ruse failed or were questionable. (c) Both of the above.

Señor El Once : Good unrelated questions


Dear Mr. Good,

Your impression that 2/3 of the available videos being long-shots is just that: an impression and not fact until the data is correlated. Of these long-shots, how many used a tripod? I seem to recall there being only a total of forty something videos of the 2nd plane hitting... not all of them unique.

That "cohabitants" can be heard in the background reacting to the events does not necessarily indicate amateur status. One of the areas of fakery research shows surprising overlap of voice patterns and words between certain videos, like the hysterical woman screaming in the background "Oh my God!" Could it have been the same team of (professional) actors and video manipulators?

You seem to be making all sorts of plausible yet benign excuses founded on your gut instincts, yet you haven't stepped up to Simon Shack's challenge to review his page and debunk it, nor will you list the videos that prove your case.

It doesn't take many instances to prove video fakery and a complicit corporate media in the hoax. September Clues and its branch of research go above and beyond in overwhelmingly proving some of the extent of video fakery. Above and beyond because clearly proof of as little as two instances of video manipulation puts the 9/11 television imagery into doubt. "Of course we saw what the telly showed us, but did the telly really show us the real event?"

You asked:

Why would you find non-reporting of a hurricane that never came off anomalous? There are lots of hurricane warnings in NYC, many of them never pan out; so what?

First of all, the hurricane did come off. They were tracking it, monitoring it, and reporting on it all week leading up to 9/11. I'm led to believe that hurricanes hit the East Coast from the South and the East, just like this one would have. Hurricanes are known to change direction.

The anomalous nature of Hurricane Erin isn't just that it went to the East, isn't just that it stopped. This hurricane could have easily have switched back to its former path and gone West to cream NYC. So what is anomalous is that when the storm is very close (within 500 miles) with the ability not only two change direction but to also effect NYC with a storm surge, this event became non-News, not worthy of reporting, mentioning only in passing.

Combine proven instances of video fakery and the deliberate suppression of a massive hurricane lingering off of the coast, and you've got a reason to suspect the motives and fairness of all corporate media reporting after 9/11. It wasn't as we were told, and they did all they could to re-enforce the "kooky" label to any who questioned it. Of course, the run-up to Iraq already proved corporate media's role in being the lackey propaganda meister for the administration.

P.S. Mr. Good, I have a couple of unrelated questions. Would you be so kind as to monitor your gmail account and, if applicable, answering my benign questions?

Señor El Once : Good mainstream 9/11 theories also will do great harm


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote with emphasis added:

The harm that can come from CIT presenting their findings is that, based on their past behavior they will claim proof of things they have not proved, they will misrepresent some of their evidence, they will present deceptive arguments, they will refuse to answer questions, and they will attack those who question them, claiming they are government agents. The flyover hypothesis will be quite attractive to reporters who want to paint the hearings as a tinfoil kook-fest, and will thus damage the credibility of the entire enterprise and everyone associated with it.

Well, gee. By your reasoning, all of the mainstream 9/11 theories also will do great harm.

- As an example, super-dooper nano-thermite has been proven neither to pulverize content nor to burn for months under the rubble (at least in amounts that weren't overkill excessive and unreasonable to have been applied.)
- Deceptive arguments have been made against milli-nukes, stemming from assumptions in the analysis of the radiation levels, not to mention how, when, and by whom such measurements were made. No talk of cold fusion being involved at all.
- Few theories venture into answering questions about the anomalous vehicle flipping and destruction. Govt agents are indeed all around the 9/11 truth movement (eh, Mr. Good? LOL!) because they have to be even if the long-shot probability of govt LIHOP (or less as in the OGCT) is what God reveals to us as the truth in the afterlife. Why? Because control of the media and the message is a military strategy. They have to be involved & meddling to steer it, to control it, and to make use of it to their ends ongoing and today.
- Make 9/11 into a "tin-foil kook-fest" and they have a leg up into discrediting questions about Japan, anomalous weather & earthquake pattern throughout the world, and wars wars wars.

Are you aware of the website of Pilots for Truth co-founder John Lear, which hosts papers claiming that the Germans have maintained manned lunar bases since 1943?

In the words of the Dr. Suess's Cat in the Hat, "And that is not all I can do, no, that is not all."

Not just Germans. Aliens. Not just one species of aliens, but several. In fact, one species of aliens is reportedly more native to earth than humans are. Humans of today? Version 2 of a DNA genetically created slave race, purposely dumbed down, because version 1 was too smart.

Now if this isn't a far out "tin-foil kook-fest", then I don't know what is... making me the ultimate duped useful idiot.

Rational people, however, should give this some serious consideration.

Where did the pyramids come from? I've studied math and physics, and let me tell you, Newton's calculus is one very trippy concept. It works in many different areas (not just falling objects but rate of change of voltage/current in capacitors/coils in electronics.) How in the hell did Newton discover it? Laplace Transforms and Fourier Transforms: all very helpful and useful once they are taught to you, but who taught the teachers?

More importantly, why would humans have put up with such irrational policies like atomic bomb proliferation, landmines, chemical & biological weapons of mass destruction, torture, war, etc.? Or even environmental destruction, throw-away mentality, wasting non-renewable resources? Left to our own devices, we wouldn't have put up with it; we would have moved on to more productive and sustainable ventures. But if our governments and the ruling classes/elite of our society were co-opted by another force with another agenda, it makes more sense; the history of the human world makes more sense. We, humans, have been played for a long, long time. Our history isn't what we've been told.

It behooves us to step back and see a bigger picture. How far does our manipulation go and to what end?

This really isn't the right forum for this, Mr. Good. I've been trying to get you to respond to my messages sent to your hotmail account on a completely different topic. I'm no expert in the alien field, but would be happy to discuss further off-list what I've gathered (but still on the fence regarding believing.)

Señor El Once : assume that planes were flown into the WTC


Dear Mr. Good,

I suspose we all are guilty at one point or another of re-posting passages from past exchanges. Sometimes in our rush, though, we lose sight of the fact that we should edit such re-postings to make the salient points even more applicable. Such is the case here when you wrote:

At 911oz I presented Mr. Balsamo with a list of 23 questions that he refused to answer.

Mr. McKee has already taken you to task for several questions meant to steer the discussion into the weeds and could have been removed to make your case tighter. When I do the mental editing of your 23 questions to make them applicable here, one question stands out and is my motivation for responding.

* Why not just fly a plane into the building like they did at the WTC?

You assume that planes were flown into the WTC, because it is what we were told. TeeVee footage repeated this over and over so that it has become a very tenacious opinion held by the public, whether or not it is factual. However, September Clues and other proponents of video forgery raise sufficient doubt and highlight what was imposed on us by a complicit mass media [an impression underscored by the coordinated and purposeful surpressing of the Hurricane Erin status on all networks]. The lack of aircraft debris at Shanksville was a glaring piece of evidence that none of the airplanes can be assumed; each plane's existence or definitive role in the events must be proven independently.

On this note, each plane's definitive role in the events has not been conclusively proven by the govt. Unanswered questions abound regarding whether certain planes flew that day, whether they took off, who was on the official passenger lists, the lack of conclusive serial numbered plane parts, flight data recorder discrepancies, flight paths, flight physics, crash physics, cellphone calls...

You asked:

* What was achieved by the flyover op except providing a golden opportunity for citizen jouirnalists to prove inside job?

Risk mitigation was the primary reason for video forgery on the towers, and remains why a real plane doing a flyover at the Pentagon coordinated with ground explosives is better than a real plane.

Would a real plane hit the target? ... And not be crippled by light poles causing it to crash early, not hit the target squarely, or not impose sufficient damage?

A real plane might not achieve the hidden but vastly important goals of wiping out the entire Office of Naval Intelligence investigating the $2.3 trillion dollars unaccountable by the Pentagon (September 10, 2001). This is a significant amount.

You asked:

* Did the plane fly away without detection on radar?
* How do you explain its invisibility to radar? Or are the DCA ATCs in on the plot too?

Redundant questions. The answer: Multiple military exercises were in progress during the critical 9/11 events. They involved simulating the exact scenarios that transpired. They also involved the insertion and deletion of radar blips.

You asked in a stilted and framed manner:

* Isn’t CIT lying when they say the cloverleaf light poles could be planted the night before because they would be inconspicuous?

Stating opinions is not lying. I agree with CIT, that "cloverleaf light poles could be planted the night before ... inconspicuously."

Here are three other questions that should be striked from your 23 as being irrelevant.

* Do you agree that most aviation professionals, military people, media people, and politicians react negatively to Craig’s needs-a-haircut Partridge Family persona?

Negative reaction to a haircut? If they're adults, such reactions should be fleeting. Or are you saying that "most aviation professionals, military people, media people, and politicians" are so shallow as to base their entire assessment of another individual exclusively by how they look? Judging a book by its cover?

* What’s your opinion about John Lear’s “Cities on the Moon” stuff?

This is a guilt by association ploy. If that wasn't bad enough, if you scratch the surface, what do the many highly educated and articulate astronauts say on the subject? Your ploy fails twice in the same pass.

* Do you agree with Cindy Sheehan that a lot of stuff in the truth movement is “batshit crazy”? What do you think she’s referring to?

Hey, I'm "batshit crazy"! It doesn't make me wrong, and more importantly, it hasn't been proven wrong. And I, for sure, would greatly appreciate it be convincingly proven wrong so that I won't so consistently be outside of mainstream opinions and views in my "batshit crazy" realm.

Señor El Once : lamest of weak arguments will prevail if it isn't countered


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

“It hasn’t been proven wrong” is about the weakest argument there is.

Agreed. But even the lamest of weak arguments will prevail if it isn't countered. Moreover, those countering it will need more than ridicule and side-stepping; they'll need reason and truth.

The batshit crazy spectrum is rather broad. When I wrote that fragment, my mind was thinking "Dr. Judy Wood and her excellent recent textbook on 9/11 and directed energy weapons." It was also thinking "video forgery, September Clues, no planes."

The proposition that George W. Bush is actually a 500-year-old reptile from outer space hasn’t been proven wrong, but that doesn’t mean we should use it in our campaign to increase 9/11 awareness and get new investigations.

If you have sufficient information to make "the proposition that George W. Bush is actually a 500 year-old reptile from outer space," then you know more than I do or have gathered.

With regards to tying the Bush family bloodlines to alien reptile cross-breeding in ancient days, I am most unclear on its relation to 9/11 in specific matters, but it does kind of explain how American foreign policy has an almost alien agenda to it -- to radically position mankind into a state where they are easy to control and exterminate. I don't bring it up in the campaign to increase 9/11 awareness. (You sort of did by bringing up John Lear and moon bases manned by Germans since 1943.)

Associating the movement with science fiction fantasies hurts credibility.

Science fiction fantasies? Most good science fiction have elements of truth to a degree that they foreshadow or predict the future in terms of feel and some details.

In terms of 9/11, too many have painted with an overly broad brush of science fiction fantasy, with an explicit attempt to take out directed energy weapons and video forgery among other theories from that broad batshit crazy spectrum.

Señor El Once : Good main purposes of SLC


Dear Ms. Burik, you wrote:

Because I am such an inquisitive person, I decided to google you [Brian Good], to see who you “claim to be”. You claim to ‘spend a lot of time at ScrewLooseChange’ – why? It’s a duhbunker site. It’s a complete waste of time. ‘Harmful to the credibility of the forum’?! So you are defending the credibility of a duhbunker site?! Run by the guy who made a phony ‘AE info’ website? It appears they have taken down the forum, so what do you spend your time on now? The few hits that came up on you on google were not flattering, to say the least.

Actually, Screw Loose Change [SLC] is alive, and just as irrelevant & irreverent as ever. Brian Good under the alias "snug.bug" is active there. Yes indeed, your question regarding why Mr. Good is active there at all is valid. (Me? I've never posted there, although my name has been smeared there and I have engaged one its main participants in another forum, where he employed similar underhanded tactics.)

I think I've discovered the main purposes of SLC.

First of all, SLC serves as a Google repository of smears on people or projects (videos, books, presentations, etc.) of note in the 9/11 Movement. No, Blogspot isn't the Google search engine, but it gets searched and indexed by Google. SLC allows dirt and lies to be published about people -- whether or not they are aware they're being smeared. This way, if a normal web surfer decides to google that name or project, SLC will appear in the search results as an unflattering reference. With Google being a regular part of the job application & background process, such smears are a gift/harm that keeps on giving/harming.

Secondly, SLC serves as a mini-echo chamber and NSA Q-Group training forum. Without controversy or conflict (in movies, novels, or internet forums), it isn't interesting or compelling. Without Mr. Good on SLC, they'd have little to say except "I agree, bro. Ditto. What you said." When all else fails, Mr. Good is sure to show up with a "truther" perspective and be their foil.

I don't want to repeat the slurs and accusations against Mr. Good by the likes of GuitarBill, who proved himself to be an A-class disinfo Q-Groupie in places like AlterNet. On the one hand, I think Mr. Good has gotten a very raw deal by the immoral antics of the SLC regulars, and their internet echo-chamber fabrication, linking, and trumpeting of slurs. (The slur is created in some place at some time; later in a new forum, they'll link to the original smear as some form of factual substantiation: "See the skeleton's in Mr. Good's closet?")

On the other hand, given those slurs and unfounded accusations and their persistence over a very long time, it questions Mr. Good's rational self that he would continue to participate. Going back repeatedly for more of the same gutter abuse as if it will result in a different outcome?

Señor El Once : Good twisted this a little


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

Mr. Once, I am not interested in debunking Mr. Shacks’s claims that a couple of dozen videographers were all 9/11 conspirators. Waste of time.

I think you've twisted this a little. The most important aspect of Mr. Shack's claims are that 44 videos, give or take, were doctored. Who doctored them or when remains to be seen.

You call them "conspirators." They probably call themselves "contractors" charged with a small role in getting footage into the public realm. Whether they even took the footage themselves, whether they did the doctoring themselves, or whether doctoring was done after they submitted it through media channels are each separate aspects, thus the extent of their involvement in the conspiracy has to be viewed on an individual case-by-case basis.

Compartmentalization probably severely limited the extent of their knowledge of any other parts of the operation. Significant contracting fees and/or their "15 minutes of fame" (10 years of fame) would contribute to their motivation for playing their role.

The penalty for revealing their involvement, though, would have been clear, particularly after the Anthrax attacks and other blatant squashing of whistleblowers.

The hurricane didn’t come off. It never hit New York.

This is just simple wrong, and you brush it aside too casually.

The hurricane existed. The hurricane was there. It did come up the Atlantic coast, whether or not it hit New York.

By your logic, the hurricane didn't hit New York on September 7, 8, 9, or 10, so it shouldn't have been tracked, monitored, and reported... But was. On those days, any city along the Atlantic coast could have been the target. By 9/11, whether or not New York could still be considered in the hurricane's path doesn't make it un-newsworthy, particularly when cities North of New York could have been hit.

The hurricane was important news for anyone traveling on or over the ocean. Were the airports not shutdown nationwide, the hurricane could have had major ramifications in terms of delays and detours in international flights.

A weather anchors for corporate mass media might have been justified at 5 p.m. on September 11, 2001 in saying "the hurricane didn't hit New York, so maybe we got lucky and it didn’t come off."

The issue starts with the fact this hurricane's missing of New York (or other New England coasts) was not a foregone conclusion on the morning of 9/11. It should have been active news that was widely reported and whose progress was monitored and updated regularly by both local and network media outlets, as they had been doing on all of the days leading up to 9/11.

The issue widens when considering the extent of the media conspiracy on 9/11 to suppress hurricane news: both local and network news (except for one small weather update by one local FOX News affiliate) worked in tandem to bury this story.

Señor El Once : ScrewLooseChange forum


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

Mr. Once, GuitarBill is nothing but an A-class idiot who discredits himself, his ideas, and the ScrewLooseChange forum. He says really really stupid things and then denies that he said them.

The ScrewLooseChange forum is discredited with and without the help of GuitarBill.

You may under-estimate GuitarBill. Yes, at times, he is an A-class idiot who does indeed sometimes say really stupid things that he then later denies. Other times, he has very crafty postings that take some effort to locate the deception and counter. He is intelligent and educated particularly in things IT related, although his intimate IT knowledge seems to come and go. Of course, among the stupid things he's written include his educational background given in his profile (now deleted) in blogger, on AlterNet, and in Community Hall of a San Francisco escort and massage website that he calls home (as Algorithmx). Why stupid? Because they contradicted each other.

I haven't dealt with GuitarBill directly in a long time (1/2010). But I guess my encounters with him rattled him so much, he went through half a year jumping at shadows and accusing his opponents-du-jour of being me. Another stupid move.

But the above to me are clues that GuitarBill might be really "Team GuitarBill." The difference in tenor, tone, and tactics -- those postings that juxtapose goats and sex acts compared to those postings that are somewhat researched re-posts from his database -- hint at multiple people, if not in the posting action then in the authoring of the content.

"Team GuitarBill" might have even deeper roots within a certain NSA Q-group. Both the team aspect and for whom the team plays suggest caution and to not under-estimate. Afterall, he seemed to have sleuthed your IP address in one thread.

As to gutter abuse, only the truth hurts. Lies from lying liars I take as a tribute.

I hear you, and on SLC, you are probably safe from getting hurt, because nearly all of the participants there have this military combat buddy aura in their me-too-ism's and echo chamber re-iteration of govt talking points followed by ignorant gutter slams.

As I have experienced, the lies from lying liars have more sting in other environments and when executed in a more subtle manner. The most important other environment is google, when its searches brings such lies forth and towards the top of its search results.

Señor El Once : short videos relating to 9/11 video fakery


Here's a couple of short videos relating to 9/11 video fakery. One shows how the videos we watched didn't correlate to other live action crashes we've observed. The other shows how Hollywood paid more attention to detail (and probably had more time to tweak it to make it look right) in their 1978 movie of a plane crashing into a building and exhibiting crash physics.

9/11 fake: Basic Crash Physics 101

9/11 Fake: 1978 Movie Mocks 9/11 Plane Crash

Señor El Once : Knowing Your Good Audience


Dear Mr. Juliano,

Knowing who someone is (spiritually), what their agenda is, or to whom their allegience is are important aspects of "knowing your audience" and adjusting your presentation accordingly.

Your debate opponent has many characteristics of a govt agent. No need to call him that in public, but your recognition of this can help you in expressing your position. For example, you won't ever convince this person, so the true audience for your words should be the lurkers (both present-day and future) of the forum. Calling him on his tactics won't stop him from repeating it, but will disarm the hypnosis such tactics may have at being convincing to the lurker audience.

One such tactic of your debate opponent is to create busy work for you to run along and do, which he will then promptly ignore and claim as irrelevant once (or if) you deliver.

"How should I know how many videos there are; you tell me?... Oh, 85, you say? Well why don't you get an FOIA request with the FBI for them. Once you have them and viewed them, then we can discuss them, and I'll be provided by that time the talking points on how I should address/ignore this. I'm not serious in searching for truth, but in kicking up sand into the lurker-readers' eyes to delay their personal revelation of what the 9/11 truth is closer to."

Another tactic is to avoid answering your questions while posing more (busy work questions) of his own. In this case, he didn't venture to speculate on why the videos weren't released, yet wants to have you spin your wheels in talking about Pentagon defenses.

Many options exist in handling this. Point out that he didn't answer the question you asked, and put the discussion on topic by answering your own original question. Then you can turn the tables on his question by saying "a good lawyer doesn't ask questions he doesn't already know the answer to; so what defenses do you speculate the Pentagon had on 9/11?" And as it turns out, any answer at all -- radar monitoring, 85 video cameras on the outside, re-enforced concrete walls, speed-dial to pilots in Air Force jets warmed up on runways -- will prove the Pentagon better protected that 99.99999% of the buildings in the world.

Señor El Once : Good words into my mouth


Dear Mr. Good wrote:

"So Senor Once will tell us that Sgt. Williams is lying and the pictures are fake because he doesn’t want to believe them. But Sgt. Lagasse is telling the truth and the ASCE BPAT report are telling the truth because he wants to believe them. Selective skepticism leads to self-deception and isolation."

Don't be putting words into my mouth. At this point in time, I don't know who Sgt. Williams or Sgt. Lagasse are and what either of them might be "lying about."

In addition, that is a mighty confusing paragraph. Who does "he" refer to with the phrase: "he doesn’t want to believe them (the pictures)?" Me or Sgt. Williams? Likewise, who is "he" with the phrase: "he wants to believe them?" Me or Sgt. Lagasse? If either of them refer to me, then again you are making unfounded speculation.

You did make a couple of other statements that at first I thought I'd have to rake over the coals.

Why don’t they release the videos? To make the point that they don’t have to, that it’s none of our business. And maybe to set people up to engage in a whole lot of wheelspinning theorizing, people who can all be made to look very foolish simply by releasing a few videos? ... Ken Jenkins explained ... why he gave up on Pentagon research. He ... recognized that none of the evidence can be trusted because it all comes from the military.

Yes, I do believe you are correct that they didn't release the videos precisely to make the point that they didn't have to, but not in the sense of legal and moral obligation (which remain), but in the sense that the military-industrial-media complex is the deciding entity and not the administration, a legislative commission, the courts, the ballot box, or citizens protest groups.

The phrase "that it’s none of our business" is a bit of a stretch. It truly is our business and we should more forcefully make it our business. This phrase is presented as more of a command: "think what we tell you."

Military indoctrination has always been: "leave nobody behind; protect and defend your brother soldier on and off the battlefield; covering the ass of your superiors can be the road to advancement."

Once the military-industrial complex decided that it wanted to go to war with Iraq by way of Afghanistan, as outlined by PNAC, and with war being the pre-occupation and training of all good soldiers, it is in keeping with their brotherhood mottos for military individuals and groups to jump on the bandwagon, taint the evidence, so that wars can be waged.

Señor El Once : Can't leave Big Blocks of Disinformation Hanging


Dear Mr. Juliano,

I've been out to the forum and saw the response in context. It hardly seems worth it all. Mr. McKee is right. But I've been infected in the past with the desire to address falsehoods with truth, so I know where you are coming from. If you can't be dissuaded from such foolhardy debates, then read on.

Here's some tactical advice. First of all, write off-line in an editor. Could be as brain-dead as Notepad or Word. (Save your work locally, and include a link within that file to the source forum.)

Second, know the formatting mechanisms of the forum and use that syntax extensively to make perfectly clear what they wrote and what you wrote. Be anal about it. That forum uses a square bracket type syntax; this one accepts some limited HTML. [When you post stuff from that forum here, please put a <blockquote></blockquote> around the sucker so Mr. McKee's audience can follow it.]

Third, break down your opponent's message line by line. Meaning, quote a line from them using the forum formatting, then tear it apart. Quote another line using the forum formatting, then tear it apart. There might be throw-away sentences from your opponent that you can either leave out or tack at the beginning of a sentence or phrase that you're going to rake over the coals.

The point is that more effective use of the medium can literally highlight their lies and why they are so. Not to do too much of your work for you (and please put into your own words or arguments), but here is some low-hanging fruit to get you started (with my example formatted for this forum).

["You" below is directed at the opponent.]

Viveka wrote:

Gee, I dunno, maybe because [the building and other debris from the site] was located in the financial mecca of the US if not the world and there are people and vehicle traffic that need to flow through the area unimpeded.

You're right. You don't know, and your guessing reflects it.

The financial mecca of the US is electronic and is housed in redundant data backup centers in geographically dispersed locations. This is proven by the financial markets being back on line and in business the week after 9/11 -- when the SEC removed trading restrictions and billions of illicit funds were laundered.

Moreover, the WTC area is a penisula or island with bridges connecting it to other parts of the the city where the loading docks and airports are. Thus, your reasoning for why evidence was rapidly shipped away -- "people and vehicle traffic needing to flow through the area unimpeded" -- is just you grasping at straws and kicking up sand.

Viveka wrote:

Should they have just left all the debris strewn all over the place until every last armchair internet conspiracy theorist was satisfied?

I would have settled for the satisfaction of, say, Fire Inspectors/Investigators, who vigorously complained (to the limits of holding their jobs) about the destruction of evidence, as did many other professions.

Did you see the videos of the legions of dump trucks filing into WTC on 9/11? Or of the mayor proudly proclaiming how many dump trucks had been filled on 9/11? No. From minute one, they most certainly were not going to leave "all the debris strewn all over the place" precisely to prevent "professional conspiracy theorists" (ala Arson Investigators, Insurance Fraud Investigators, Terror Attack Investigators, etc.) from learning something.

Viveka wrote:

To the majority of people at the site it was pretty clear why the building collapsed.

Because the official story down to Osama bin Laden and jet fuel fires weakening steel was fleshed out and broadcast from the earliest moments of the "disaster" and repeated endless on television like a fresh O.J. Simpson or Michael Jackson scandal.

Maybe your slip of the fingers in typing "why" instead of "how" is revealing. The majority of the people at the site and observing the totality of the destruction, the pulverization of content, and the lack of recognizable office debris most certainly weren't clear on "how the towers were destroyed." Some thought it was nukes, but then why were they even alive?

However, when they heard the war drums on corporate media and certainly the outcome of the Afghanistan invasion (e.g., military bases popping up along the proposed natural gas pipeline that the Taliban had previously refused, resurgance of poppies for heroin that the Taliban forbid) and the Irai invasion (massive bases in Iraq as a permanent military presense in the Middle East to replace the Saudi bases they closed, shutting down of Iraqi oil to give Saudi suppliers the benefit of price increases) and the massive amounts of flagrant war profiteering, then yes, it became pretty clear to a majority of the people in the US "why the building collapsed."

Viveka wrote:

There was no need for a major big deal criminal investigation of WTC7 collapse because all the causative factors were identified by hundreds of people at the scene while it was happening.

Bravo! Brav-oh! Pulled that one out of your ass, did you?

And what would "all the (identified) causative factors" be for the destruction of WTC-7?

Debris from the airplanes? WTC-7 was on fire before either tower collapsed. Just make a note of the floors on which these fires were. The floors on fire did not change significantly with either tower collapse.

Debris from the collapsing towers? Too bad the video and pictorial evidence -- like the NIST footage now released but suppressed for 9 years -- doesn't show significantly more damage. Now the crater in WTC-6? That is a different story.

The diesel fuel generators? Too bad that the authorities have ruled this out as being capable of launching the 47 story WTC-7 into 8 stories of free-fall.

Viveka wrote:

So some random explosion goes off and three hours later WTC7 collapses, wow, that’s a curious sort of clandestine demolition.

More likely, a clandestine demolition gone wrong. They really, really, really wanted WTC-7 destroyed, because with it goes the SEC records and all sorts of investigations get stopped. Pay-back to many a Bush financial backer in trouble.

Viveka wrote:

They can set off the charges hours before the building collapses, amazing technology this shadow gov’t has!

Although I imply that the delay in WTC-7 destruction was an accident, an operation gone wrong, it could also have been by design.

"We, the perpetrators from elite circles, can do what ever we want whenever we want and tell you whatever we want; and through sheer repetition and control of the media, we'll get you to believe it. You'll watch with slack jaw as commissions and investigations are hijacked, court cases thrown out, and the media bangs war drums while labeling anything contrary as unpatriotic, kooky, loony, and crazy."


So, Mr. Juliano, I could go on, but I won't. It's your battle.

The summary of the above is that you can't leave big blocks of disinformation hanging. You have to take them on and tear them apart sentence by sentence. Whereas the little diddy regarding "how" versus "why" might seem unfair, it forces your opponent to be accurate and truthful. If he doesn't raise his game in response, he'll continually get his ass handed to him.

Hope this helps.

Señor El Once : Damn it, now you got me started


Professional disinformation agents know the truth and the skew. They have to come across as being believers of the skew and justifying such an opinion.

More importantly, they sometimes toss out gems of truth masked as ridicule or something else that really should be investigated further. Viveka in particular brought up two points.

One was addressed above (but repeated here for clarity.)

Viveka wrote:

What about the 64 people aboard Flight 77. Were they all just made up?

Yes! Exactly! Most of the 64 on Flight 77 probably were “just made up!” Made-up SimVictims is not anything new and is even covered in Operation Northwood from the JFK era, but with the caveat that social media now makes it so much easier to generate false legends, albeit with the caveat that close scrutiny can poke (and has poked) holes in them.

Viveka later wrote:

The guy in your video is a big blowhard. (He cites Steven Jones for fuck sake, has that guy not yet been discredited in your book?)

Take that parenthetical seriously. It is either a slip or a massive hint on where you need to look.

My esteem for Dr. Jones is waning. However good and true that he discovered nano-thermite in the debris dust implicating the use of exotic govt weapons, it has become a distraction. Nano-thermite doesn't address all of the destruction or its nature (e.g., pulverized). If there were fires burning under the rubble for months, nano-thermite can't explain that either. Dr. Jones knows this, yet allows the science-challenged yoemen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate nano-thermite into explaining things it cannot...

Physics professor Dr. Jones, more so than any other individual or group outside or within the 9/11 truth movement has led us away from nukes of any sort with deceptive scientific techniques, assumptions, and analysis. He based his conclusions on measurements and analysis taken by govt agencies, which he has in other context taken to task for being less than forthright or forthcoming.

And when I say "nukes of any sort", I am also referring to nuclear mechanisms/generators as an energy source as well as cold-fusion, which is yet another area where Dr. Jones has roots of deception.

Dr. Jones was involved in the PSYOPS re-enforced over time against Dr. Wood. He was the first and most prominent to ridicule Dr. Wood and mischaracterize her arguments about pulverization being a massive energy as "beams from space or space-based DEW."

The point is, parsing their messages exactly can not only tear apart their efforts while also giving you clues on where to look.

Señor El Once : Few do except DEW does


Dear Mr. Juliano, you wrote:

It is very interesting you question Steven Jones’ emphasis on nano-thermite. Not too long ago I also was an advocate for Dr. Judy Wood’s theories, and felt Jones was part of the cover-up, but I have since seen a good rebuttal of her theory of ‘dustification’ of steel...

Would you be so kind as to provide us with a link or reference for that "good rebuttal". I could use some education in the matter. Don't like being the sole duped useful idiot on the matter.

... [Dr. Wood's] theory of ‘dustification’ of steel of which apparently there is no evidence, ...

Plenty of steel exists in the rubble pile, which may be used by opponents as the evidence that no "dustification of steel" happened, sort of a gross exaggeration or over-generalization of the fabled strawman agrument variety.

In my skewed conclusions-du-jour, the DEW aimed its energy in a manner that focused it, say, up-and-down and targeted away from things like the inner-core. Multiple devices in tandem at a given level, like at four points around the core, could be aimed to miss both the inner core (holding them up) and the outer steel wall, while "microwaving" all other content within the "cylinder or cone of their destructive beams." (Later, a clean-up DEW from the bottom could have taken out the spire of inner-core used as a supporting platform for the upper DEW devices.)

The sole reference in Dr. Wood's textbook to "dustification of steel" that my aging memory recalls -- thus reserving my right to be wrong -- was the seeming evaporation of that spire of inner-core from WTC-1 (the 2nd tower to fall) that was captured on many pieces of video. Certainly a most miraculous occurrence no matter how you view it. Did the steel really dustify before our eyes? Or were supporting constructs connecting the steel microwaved into dust thereby causing everything to fall and presenting the illusion that everything in the spire was zapped?

If I am wrong in this matter of the extent of "dustification of steel" in Dr. Wood's textbook, then maybe such a premise hasn't solidified in my own personal theories on the towers, whereby I grasp at nuggets of truth from various (disinformation?) sources to come to my own speculative conclusions.

... and yet [Dr. Wood] rejects the nano-thermite as evidence?

Again, news to me that maybe my selective reading attention missed, as I mined her book for nuggets of truth to bolster my own skewed understanding of events.

It seems to me that she and I were aligned in rejecting nano-thermite as an explanation for all of the evidence, but not necessarily as evidence of a companion means of destruction. All about using the right tool for the job. It would have been beneficial to keep the outer steel shell of the towers in tact to hide most of the targeted DEW pulverization within. DEW does the heavy pulverization while nano-thermite split seconds later cuts the bolts of the steel wall sections that were acting as a curtain to hide the DEW magic.

Wrapping this back around to the beginning, you wrote:

Not too long ago I also was an advocate for Dr. Judy Wood’s theories, and felt Jones was part of the cover-up, but I have since seen a good rebuttal ...

Does this imply that the rebuttal made you flip-flop 100% from Wood's camp back into Jones's? Does this mean that you think Jones is no longer part of the cover-up?

It is well to separate evidence from theories. Jones doesn't address the evidence that Wood's presents. Few do except DEW does.

Señor El Once : Restitution Goes Back to 1913


Dear Mr. Juliano,

Thank you for the link to "Debunking Dr. Judy Wood and her Space Beam". After reading parts and scanning other parts, I don't hold it in high regard. (And it is on FBI's Facebook.)

It seemingly tries to manufacture outrage and scandal. I noticed many dubious framing of the claims that seem stilted towards strawmen that the rebuttal knocks over.

No time for a detailed analysis, but claim 1 has rebuttals that split hairs over court filings and completely glosses over who had the fortitude to make it to court. The statement "silenced by the 9/11 victims compensation package" is one of those gems needing further exploration in its own right, but doesn't really support the debunking effort either.

The rebuttal to the second claim puts a back-scratching article snuck into a "friendly journal" on the same level as a legal document filed in court. It really doesn't get better from there, except in how it muddies the water.

I very much feel they HAVE got exotic weaponry, and there is good evidence – testimony from credible sources – they have ‘experiemented’ with it in Iraq, Afghanistan, and that Israelis also have used it.

This is something worthy of more publicity and research.

But personally, when I was very into that, I found myself distrusting the controlled demolotion cum thermite and nano-thermite truthers because Andrew’s especially emphasis was to accue all of that is being a deliberate diversion away from knowledge of free energy. So in a way we are talkin ‘a conspiracy OF a conspiracy’.

Diversion away from knowledge of free energy is another conspircy that might relate in a Vengraph sort of a way. Has validity. They killed the electric car. Hell, they killed one of the greatest mass transit systems in the world in LA, with the backroom business dealings that converted their street car system into buses.

I saw a video taken from a nother angle where it is NOT turning to dust at all but falling down! The usual film is illusionary, because what your seeing is dust on it staying there for a second whilst it collapses making it seem like it is turning to dust. it is VERy frustrating that I have collected my links but that one I cannot find

I've seen that and agree that steel turning to dust is probably an overstatement. Affixing our attention to this falling spire is still important. The fact that a spire remained at all in light of gravitational collapses at free-fall rates, pile drivers, crush down, etc. is curious. And that the spire on cue drops.

I STILL am open, like I say, that there could have been an exottic weapon used, BUT if other evidence is enough, why should it matter? I am seriously asking this.

You've already pointed it out. They've used exotic weapons in war. Is this legal or moral? Is it justified (the use of the weapon and the war itself)? Is it American? Who will complain on our behalf when it is used on us?

If other evidence is enough (to prove govt corruption and 9/11 involvement), the full and true cause matters for the same reasons that family members and the community need to know whether inattentive driving-while-texting crashed the car or whether multiple gunshot wounds in the driver's head led to the fatal car crash.

Just like the shock-and-awe of 9/11 knee-jerked us into multiple wars against fabled enemies and destruction of our rights, shock-and-awe to the public's awareness regarding the depth and extent of the 9/11 crime and its conspirators is requisite to get us to the appropriate reset point.

How deeply do we need to cut to root out the vermin and their influence?

I'm convinced that parts of the restitution goes back to 1913 when the Federal Reserve and the personal income tax were foisted on us. I'm convinced that the media was an active player in the 9/11 ruse. How much of that do we disassemble, and can we do it before they kill the internet?

Señor El Once : FBI’s Facebook


I wrote:

“Thank you for the link to “Debunking Dr. Judy Wood and her Space Beam”. After reading parts and scanning other parts, I don’t hold it in high regard. (And it is on FBI’s Facebook.)”

Mr. Juliano wrote:

How do you know it is on FBI’s Facebook?

When I click on the link, it takes me to Facebook.

If your question refers to FBI's ownership of Facebook, you're correct that this was pulled out of my ass. Ownership is a different question from who has keys to its backdoor and from whether such key holders are the FBI, CIA, NSA, or some other unknown agency. If they can't get in the backdoor with Zuckerberg's master password, they'll be ramming it down with whatever means are at their disposal. As an information source on the population, Facebook is just too good to be true for "law enforcement."

Mr. Juliano wrote:

Dr. Wood’s claims that the steel turned to dust: IF you saw it has not turned to dust at all but had just fallen over, when seen from another angle, how would you feel about Wood’s theory of ‘dustification’? Just this point for now, please.

The extent of dustification is another dubious re-framing by others akin to "beams from space" to caste Dr. Wood and her evidence into a bad light without the responsibility of offering a better explanation.

Clearly, drywall, concrete, and other content were dustified almost down to the molecular level. This is a massive energy sink that conventional demolition with explosives (exotic or otherwise) can't explain, at least not without seismic and audio evidence also being in agreement.

The question of whether the spire was dustified is a different question from whether other steel or metal were dustified.

In the videos of the spire, I did not see the remaining spire of WTC-1 inner-core "fall over." I saw dust suddenly being kicked up along its height and particularly its joints (e.g., at each floor). The dust lingers in the air as a distracting cloud while the steel beams slip down through it and to the ground at gravitational acceleration. The steel beams along the entire height had some appearance of suddenly no longer being connected with one another.

A similar phenomen happens in the destruction of the upper floors of WTC-2, the portion that was leaning at 23 degrees. This had angular momentum and should have toppled over. Instead, suddenly the angular momentum appears to be halted as the innerds of that chuck of floors "dustifies itself" down (change of direction) into the structure below it, which then "dustifies itself" as well, albeit a bit late to be in agreement with phyics and supposed pile drivers.

The sudden transition of the spire as well as the fact that it didn't fall over despite it having some appearance of a slight lean are noteworthy for students of physics. Specifically, the spire had strength and support through all levels and joints proven by it standing after the tower was turned to dust around it. I could have understood the weakest joint(s) failing causing it to fall over like a tree from that point. I can't understand all joints/levels of the spire seemingly disintegrating suddenly at once allowing the tree (beams) to seemingly fall "through its trunk".

In this instance of the spire and a clean-up beam, the steel did not appear to be dustified; just residual matter afixed to the steel dustified.

Was other steel dustified? I don't know.

Most of the steel from the outer walls appear to have been represented well in the various debris piles. Steel from the core? Steel from the floors that supported the pans for concrete? Steel rebar in the concrete? Unlike the outer walls, such steel would have been directly in the path of the DEW's beam (assuming this). Dr. Wood makes the argument that such steel is not represented appropriately in the debris piles, and it has much validity.

Señor El Once : Governor on our 9/11 Truth Engine


We've had the governor put on our 9/11 truth engine for nearly a decade now. For the better part of that decade the position taken regarding putting forth the strongest evidence had some merit and would continue to have merit among, shall we say, rational innocent people.

The issue is that the guilty people had more than a leg up. They had their story well prepared with actors waiting in the wings before the first pixel of an aircraft was repeated endlessly on the telly. They had gears of the machine lubricated and engaged, easily turned by patriotism and flag waving to overcome moral resistance to war profiteering, torture, and other repugnant things to civil society. They have been gaming the system, steering it, slowing down the governor, and applying brakes.

The 9/11 Truth Movement was never on a level playing field, never with sufficient players, lacking in seasoned players, and always tackling the vilest of the disinformation dirty tricks and "kooky, insane, crazy" labels to distract from what a sober review of the evidence reveals. The message to whistle-blowers was swift and severe, having been kicked off with the Anthrax attacks.

Toronto Hearings wrote:

“Taking the strongest evidence and rigorously testing does what exactly?” — It will be a huge leap towards bringing the best available evidence into mainstream acceptability. The point of all this is that at the end of the hearings, we will have a report that says “here is the best evidence we have, rigorously examined and picked apart by an independent group of distinguished panelists. Stop calling us crazy and look at the damn evidence!!” That report can then be used through all sorts of channels (legal, political, media, etc) to educate those in our society who still dismiss all of 9/11 truth as conspiracy theory. This is an important goal which cannot be achieved if the evidence is not absolutely solid. It has nothing at all to do with “…all of us just agreeing that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.” It’s not about US Craig, it’s about THEM!

"Shock-and-awe, Baby! is what I say for the next decade.

Going with the strongest evidence shouldn't be at the expense of truth and other truthful pieces of evidence that others have actively tried to bury with ridicule.

The fact is, mainstream 9/11 truth addresses (the aim of the Toronto Hearings?) neither CIT well, nor DEW and alternative destruction mechanisms that more Occam Razor explain the totality of the pulverization and its massive energy requirements, nor the highly stilted television propaganda whose war drums still beat today.

I hate to get too political here, but the court jester sometimes expose the ongoing patterns, ala Jon Stewart: The Media is Pretending Ron Paul Doesn’t Exist. Ron Paul isn't just an anti-war candidate whose message they need to bury or ignore, but he also will take an axe to the Federal Reserve that is on more than one level responsible for our woes. And 9/11 plays into this as well.

Shock-and-awe, Baby. Shock-and-awe.

The effects of the crime are as big as the depth of the crime itself. We shouldn't be satisfied with a halfway and halting approach to truth, because that will leave in place the illegal wars, illegal detention centers, illegal rendition, illegal torture, and other ills and cancers to our well-being. We need to follow truth where ever it leads us.

Señor El Once : Less is More Marquis


Dear Mr. Marquis,

"Less is more." I forget the famous person who wrote a several page letter to a friend and apologized at the end for not having the time to edit it down to a much shorter note. Other famous authors talk about how writing is the easy part, but editing (and cutting things out) is where the real craft of word-smithing comes in.

You had me convinced until you wrote:
"As always, Brian Good attempts to mislead the readers with lies and distortions of the truth. In case you don’t know this is the same “Brian Good”:" and the bullet points that followed and the concluding BTW.

Regrettably, I've had the opportunity to google Mr. Good and see some of his past playgrounds, like Screw Loose Change. Although I haven't run it into the ground, my belief is that the "stalk and sexually harass" complaint against Mr. Good is an example of an opponent (Kevin Bartlett?) seeding the internet with exaggeration (and lies), from which other (later) opponents sometimes in a coordination fashion created a linked web or "internet echo chamber" of seeming validity to the accusation. "Oh, it must be true, because I read it on the internet; here's a link." Every place -- including here -- where it was deployed, it was irrelevant and unnecessary.

The one difference between other forums and your usage is that Mr. Good's opponents-of-the-day were losing the discussion and couldn't debate the points. You, on the other hand, with some editing were making mighty fine points to counter Mr. Good... until you hit below the belt.

I bring this up, Mr. Marquis, because flame-wars are a trend with CIT every where I've googled into past CIT discussions on other forums (with CIT principles in participation). I was repeatedly left with the impression that the bad internet behavior was purposely deployed (by you) not only to ban you, but also to shoot holes into the feet of the fly-over theory and your CIT research. It then resembles the classic disinformation technique of owning some controversial subject or field of research, and then doing something on purpose to discredit the champion and thusly guilt-by-association take out of contention the entire field of research.

I am very sensitive to this, because I presently champion the research of both Dr. Judy Wood and September Clues. I watch for the techniques attempted to take them and consequently their research out of play.

Needless to say, your antics elsewhere left a bad taste in my mouth and lots of doubt in my head regarding the sincerity of CIT's fly-over. To this day, I really could go either way: a real plane flew over and things were staged or a mock-up drone/missile of a plane flew into light poles and the Pentagon. (I don't believe it was a 757.)

I respectfully request that you and the "CIT fans/detractors" who are following you through the internet refrain from such nonsense here. Take a look at my angry McCain avatar. I'm Mr. McKee's Cheney, and you don't want me on your bad side. :)

Let's take Mr. Good's point-by-bullet-point rebuttal of the personal charges at face value and give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's now concentrate on the significance of the other salient points.

Thank you.

Señor El Once : Always Championing the Good Underdog


Dear Mr. McKee,

It is well that you point out Mr. Good's choice of words and his tenor. They do need to be improved.

To Mr. Good's credit:
- He has proven himself time-and-again as being well prepared and informed (before he inserts his spin.) I do not doubt that he has done a lot of work on the Pentagon plane. He is a worthy debate partner and respectable here.

- Others have called out William Rodriquez for being essentially "a swindling fraud." Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll Forums has had his flame wars with Willie. Ignoring that those flame wars are the same discrediting hole-in-foot-shooting activities I deplore, I believe there is much substance to the claim that Willie could not have done all that he credits himself with.

- Kevin Barrett has his own issues. Again, I think he may have originated the lie (or exaggeration seeding the internet echo chamber) concerning Mr. Good's "work relationship" with another 9/11 Truther that was twisted into being "stalking and sexual harassment." Had this been the case, it would come into the google search results from official police and/or "sexual predator monitoring" websites.

[BTW, I have a valued co-worker who plead guilty to some "sex crime" charges less dangerous (e.g., voyerism, illicit pictures) than implied by "stalking and sexual harassment" by Mr. Good. Fighting all the charges might have gotten some of them off my colleagues record, but at the expense of the judge punishing him significantly worse than what his plea-agreement work release permits and financially more than the $10k retainer he paid his lawyer. The point I am making is that in today's knee-jerk reactionary society, if the allegations against Mr. Good had any merit, Mr. Good probably would not even be allowed on the internet anymore.]

Because it doesn't relate to the discussion, let's just nip it in the bud here.

That's me: always championing the underdog who isn't being given a fair shake.

Señor El Once

Señor El Once : Good GuitarBill Joke


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

instead of providing a plausible explanation they’ll say, “Oh, that’s the same argument employed by someone else, so this person must be that person.”

The ad hominem attack is the argument of those who have no argument. And the identity game is the argument of those who don’t even have an ad hominem.

And when they use ad homimem together with the identity game, they are: GuitarBill.

{Inside joke for anyone who has ever gone up against that disinformation agent who makes his home today on Screw Loose Change as well as the Community Hall section of Red book, a **cough** massage and escort website for the SF Bay area seemingly catering to military and government types. Another nemesis of GuitarBill told me of this site; I would give a link but it is blocked by my corporation's IT. Mr. Good, I suspect GuitarBill is an admin or developer there, where his handle of late was AlgorithmX. For your debates on SLC if you'd like to trash GuitarBill's credibility about a simple subject like GuitarBill and his credentials, you'd do well to snoop into Community Hall.}

Señor El Once : Woes me for Good Defending


Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

Yes, indeed, you make my point. The link you posted goes to Kevin Barrett's website to a very tedious page to read. Its one redeeming quality in my book is that it is proof of what I call a concerted "smear campaign."

No need to "ask Carol Brouillet if she was in fact “stalked and harrassed” ". Why don't you ask her if she was sexually harassed, if Mr. Good was a sexual predator, and if so, why she didn't take steps to formalize her complaint with the authorities? This is where your link takes us and the accusations it makes.

Evidentally, it was first seeded... err posted to Screw Loose Change [SLC] 9/21/2009 in the comments. These comments are no longer available in their original forum. However before they disappeared, Kevin managed to resurrect these (poorly and almost incomprehensibly) on his blog on a page dedicated to Brian Good. Weak-minded, fact-challenged, and ad homimem preaching participants on SLC to this day, though, keep echoing the link and the gutter sentiments.

Athough the words are attributed to Carol Broulliet, she posted them neither to [SLC] nor to Kevin's website. It was posted to SLC by "CBSF", who got them from some Google group whose link got munge by blog auto-linking software when cut and pasted.

Were we to give that message more validity than it is worth, we see that she complains about emails, not stalking. She complains about being uncomfortable in Mr. Good's presence alone, but if it were "sexual harrasment", not only would she have labeled it as such, but she (and her husband and the 9/11 community group) would have taken steps in this regard.

In that very thread, Brian Good wrote:

Carol's post basically begs me to lay off Kevin and Willie. I was hurting them severely, pointing out Willie's lies and Kevin's endorsement of those lies. I'm still hurting them, and I'm not sorry. They've both done enormous damage to the credibility of the truth movement and Carol.

In my assessment, this comes closer to hitting the nail on the head regarding why Carol was uncomfortable. in seeing her 9/11 heroes brought low.

It is the participants on SLC (to this day) who twisted and twist the meaning of Carol's message into sexual harassment... Over and over on that thread and continuing to day. Keven Barrett demonstrates his unworthiness in the same manner with that permanent and Google-indexed page with its final "9/11 Sex Stalker" title.

Twisting meaning and repetition ad nausem of libel when they think they have a weak spot is par for the course on the disinformation SLC. Don't get me started on GuitarBill, his present nemesis, which by the similarity of the tactics might very well be an updated sockpuppet for Mr. Good's nemesis then, for all I know.

At any rate, discussions down this despicable SLC avenue against Mr. Good end here.

P.S. To Mr. Good. Woes me for defending you, but were it not for my bat-shit crazy leanings into no-planes and DEW, we'd be on the same 9/11 page. Every aspect of that SLC affair is deplorable and shouldn't be subjected on anyone, those $#%&*@! SLC disinformation whores.

As a side note if Pat ever lets commenters back into SLC, Snug.Bug wrote:

At 100 km/3600 sec you don't multiply your 100,000 m by 3600 sec. You divide it. That gives you 27.8 m-s.

You are only partially right. Your units are wrong. The correct answer is "27.8 m/s". "m-s" implies "meter-seconds" which is an entirely different dimensions than "meters per second".

Also, if you want to say a quanity x is squared, you use the ^ symbol, as in "x^2". When this appears in the denominator, it is useful to use parenthesis to explicitly state order of precedence to avoid all ambiguity. An example is "m/(s^2)" which is "meters per second squared", or acceleration.

GuitarBill has screwed up before in this regard. Whereas computer's order of precedence might interpret m/(s^2)=m/s^2, it is not the same as (m/s)^2. An oft repeated mistake similar to this is where GuitarBill flushed out (or down) his "minor in physics and advanced math degree" that he so plugged endlessly elsewhere. Yeah, typing mistakes happen, but when they are pointed out and still repeated, that's a flag.

Señor El Once : Good Informative Posting


Dear Mr. Boz,

Thank you for your very informative posting regarding Mr. Good. It sheds a picture of Mr. Good more in line with our experience here on Mr. McKee's Truth & Shadows blog.

You ask a very good question:

Why not go directly to Carol’s blog?

The reason we haven't been going to Mrs. Brouillet's blog is that few of Mr. Good's opponents make reference to it. Instead, they point to Kevin Barrett's axe-to-grind reposting & skewed executive summary of a Screw Loose Change [SLC] exchange already off the deep end with its unpunished ad hominems that employs select extracts from yet other web repositories. SLC, as its modus operandus, heavily skews the picture of Mr. Good into a realm of libel (e.g., "sexual harassment"). And since that time, SLC has been fueling that libel fire so that it burns to the top of most google searches on Mr. Good. I have never really googled Mrs. Brouillet.

The reality of Mr. Good's actions then and now, is that he is so passionate in his beliefs that he is an annoyance. Mrs. Brouillet states (October 19, 2007) that she's "royally mad at Brian for his incredibly bad judgement, and being so counterproductive." As time and interaction with Mr. Good goes on, she writes (November 16, 2007) "received assurance that [Mr. Good] wouldn’t go to the meeting- so I went".

The choice quotes Mr. Boz extracts from Mrs. Brouillet's writings from November 20, 2007 and January 18, 2008 shed further light on Mr. Good's "energy into counterproductive attacks" and the need for the group to "vote to ask Brian not to attend meetings or be on committee.s"

The limit of my lame-ass defense of Mr. Good are the charges of "stalking and sexual harassment", which I believe were deliberately trumped by the ill-rebuted SLC and too easily fall from the fingers of Mr. Good's debate partners.

However, I quite like the description: Mr. Good's "energy into counterproductive attacks." This quite nicely sums up my assessment of Mr. Good's tenure here, with the caveat the attacks were against concepts or theories, not against persons.

Thank you indeed, Mr. Boz, because "energy into counterproductive attacks" would logically be the output of an agent provacateur, an infiltrator, a govt agent.

Señor El Once : Errors in my Good Lame-Ass Defense


Dear Mr. Boz,

Upon further review, research, and reflection, I see the errors in my lame-ass defense of Brian Good based on my having incomplete information and my inate dislike of gutter libel (and trust in the overall goodness of people).

Evidentally, Mrs. Brouillet was a 9/11 community organizer and the target of Mr. Good's energy into counterproductive attacks. Mrs. Brouillet's not wanting to go to a meeting if Mr. Good were to be there could be attributed to personality conflict. But when the group votes a couple of months later to ask Mr. Good not to attend meetings or be on committees, this starts stacking another way. Moreover, the letter to Mr. Good attributed to Mrs. Brouillet takes on a different significance in a larger context.

The picture isn't pretty. And with time, new online vistas, and different participants, it also isn't relevant. The worst of it and the worst of the skewed smear (ala SLC) shouldn't be forever dug up and shoved in our faces. That's my hobby horse hot spot and the true foundation of my wimply played defense.

In other news, however, we should be tipping our hats to Mr. Good for his recent SLC efforts. Not only did he get the great and mighty disinformation warior and smear merchant GuitarBill to capitulate -- "BAN [Mr. Good]" --, but he effected the shutdown of all new comments on any article there! SLC is a forum I'd post to under any alias. However, its one redeeming factor is that the vitriol against 9/11 truth can be so over the top, it discredits itself.

Señor El Once : Do Something Good Once in Awhile


Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

Clearly a few years ago, Mr. Good was harassing Mrs. Brouillet as the principle of the 9/11 community group with an argumentative & confrontational disposition in person and attacking/biting emails in the ether of the internet. Clearly, he has exerted his energy in counterproductive attacks against 9/11 Truth (and attempts to get at the truth) all over the internet, with this blog being no exception. Mr. Good has attacked CIT with the strongest evidence? argument... which he has also used against video fakery and (nuclear/cold-fusion powered) DEW [my pet 9/11 projects today where I haven't been convinced otherwise], because the powers-that-be prefer these topics off-the-table of any serious public consideration.

Still, it doesn't mean Mr. Good can't do something good once in awhile.

You take issue with me commending Mr. Good for his actions on Screw Loose Change [SLC]. If you've ever had run-in's with GuitarBill or SLC, you'd see that getting SLC to muzzle itself is great! [I battled GuitarBill on AlterNet. GuitarBill through SLC libeled me repeatedly for half of 2010, and I've never made a single posting there under any name.]

Here's my wild-ass speculation on the matter: legend, as in CIA/NSA or other alphabet agency legend to give legitimacy to a false backstory. SLC gives Mr. Good his legend as a 9/11 truther.

You see, real 9/11 truthers don't last long on SLC. They don't get banned. They get tired of the run-around and ad hominem by the tag-teaming disinformation agents. If the truthers are smart, they quickly realize that their time is better spent elsewhere.

Ah, but conflict (in a story or discussion) peaks interest. Without conflict and someone posting an opposing point of view (e.g., 9/11 truth versus 9/11 coincidence), the me-too-isms and congratulatory backslappings get old and peter out the number of comments.

SLC has the appearance of a NSA Q-group training ground for 9/11 disinformation. Because most 9/11 truthers know better than to walk into an ambush [can be forgiven] and to stay there to absorb the repeated abuse, SLC can't fulfill its mission. So it hires Mr. Good to be their whipping boy, their designated 9/11 truther. Only their whipping boy has been whipping their asses. Time to reset.

Man, you should (not) see the abuse Mr. Good goes through, or rather went through while the comments were active. SLC not only originated the sexual harassment ad hominem against Mr. Good, but they dig it up and rub Mr. Good's nose in it regularly. Combine an old Mr. Good alias ["my pet goal" or something like that] and the hyped sexual harassment charge, and you'll get what SLC participants affectionately call Mr. Good: "goat f***er" and other variants.

Mr. Good was like a bot without tire for 9/11 truth, battling the bots from the government, coming back to life again and again, traversing over the same discussion territory again and again, suffering the same insults. Sometimes he made good arguments. For all participants, it was practice in learning how to fight dirty online. For Mr. Good, it is building a legend and street cred about 9/11 truth.

Señor El Once : legs of the straw man


Lots of things are wrong with this Legge/Chandler piece. Take this short passage.

One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed.

I agree with it up to the second comma. But for the "the only purpose" of a straw man to be ridicule of the 9/11 Truth Movement really shows either their failure of imagination, or another purpose more befitting of their own straw man efforts: misdirection.

Case in point, they immediately take swipes at other non-CIT theories without proof and as if their being wrong was self-evident.

Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by "dustification" of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of "directed free energy". It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions.

The straw man in the above is that Legge/Chandler seem to be writing about the outer structure, which indeed was severed and fell in normal lengths. Their analysis does not go into the inner-content, the concrete floors, the inner core, where indeed we discover dustification of most things. Was steel dustified? That might be a stretch, except that some nifty bent beams and "meteor melts" were present (that super-duper nano-thermite can't explain), and the debris does not seem to account for all of the steel from the core.

No need to dwell on this further, except that -- compliments of me -- Chandler has had a copy of Dr. Judy Wood's textbook since May, and he was charged with giving it an objective evaluation. This two sentence dismissal doesn't cut it.

No explanation involving "directed free energy" or nuclear devices could account for the way separate explosions appeared in the Twin Towers, layer by layer, descending at a precise rate, as the towers came down.

Legge/Chandler again show their failure of imagination with this overly generalized statement. Evidently, they've never heard of having back-up plans to the back-up plans or implementing overly redundant systems or using DEW and super-duper nano-thermite and [name something here].

The first leg of the straw man in their attack on CIT is found in this series of quotes:

The NTSB data appeared to show that the flight terminated at a point too high to have hit the Pentagon.

John Farmer used radar data to check the FDR file data and concluded that indeed several seconds of data was missing from the end of the file.7 Recently Warren Stutt discovered that there was one more frame of data at the end of the FDR file which had not been decoded previously. He wrote a decoding program and managed to extract a further 4 seconds of data. This data includes radio height above ground, which now shows the plane descending smoothly, pulling up safely and hitting the Pentagon close to the ground, in accordance with the majority of eyewitness reports.

It is rather curious that that last four seconds were missing and then were suddenly found. And upon decoding, supposedly shows a smoothly descending plane with a flight path in accordance with the majority of the eyewitness reports.

Here is the linchpin straw man in their text for which they have no reference.

It is further argued by PFT that the radar data must be in error as it does not correspond with the pressure altimeter record, which still shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon. On approach to the Pentagon, however, the plane is flying much faster than normal for an aircraft at low altitude and so would be operating well beyond the calibration envelope for the altimeter. It appears that, at least on this particular plane, a substantial error is produced, increasing as the plane accelerates and descends. In contrast the radio height would not be affected by speed. It is therefore reasonable to accept the height it shows, which corresponds with the height shown by the damage to the light poles and the face of the Pentagon. This has been fully discussed in a previous paper where it is shown that the altimeter reading and radio height reading correspond closely with each other at normal altitude and speed but diverge as the plane descends and accelerates to abnormal speeds.Error: Reference source not found

Yes, altimeters are affected by temperature, speed, and height. However, the calibration goes out of whack at high speeds and high altitudes. Nothing I have found suggests such grave errors at low altitudes.

It is therefore ~NOT~ reasonable to accept the height [radio data] shows, particularly when (a) chain-of-custody and analysis issues are major for that critical last 4 seconds of "new found" data, and (b) no evidence is presented to support that altimeters operate beyond their calibration envelope at high speeds and low altitude.

Because Legge/Chandler go into great detail to determine the speed of the aircraft and the low altitude range (for hitting and flyover) is known, Legge/Chandler failed document the calibration envelope, failed to calculate how high speeds at low altitude plays a role in the calibration, and what sort of errors would be introduced. (Would the plane be higher than the altimeter reading or lower? By how much? With an error introduced to the altimeter reading based on speed at low altitude, could the plane have been high enough still to have missed the Pentagon?)

In conclusion, the Legge/Chandler piece is fitting to the 10-year anniversary of hit-pieces aimed at ridiculing 9/11 truth.

Señor El Once : "would you agree" nonsense


Dear Mr. Marquis,

I sympathize with you and feel you are indeed getting a bad deal with your CIT efforts.

Unfortunately, you went off of the road and into the weeds with all of your "would you agree" nonsense. Yes, it was nonsense, because you've stilted questions such that "I don't agree" would be an easy and valid answer. Most of the questions are ad hominems.

Yes, you've had your unsatisfactory previous rounds with "Snowcrash" aka "Michiel de Boer". However, dragging that dirty laundry into this forum does little for readers here and little for your case. The links were good, but could have used an executive summary and select extracts (minus any ad hominems), because you're just dumping us into old debates.

For example, when commenting about this Legge/Chandler paper, you could have extracted the following:

There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth community could not cure.
~ Shelton F. Lankford, M. S., LtCol. USMC (Ret.) 18 August, 2011 Reviewer

Another example from Rob Balsamo:

Legge's new "paper" was debunked over 2 years ago when "Reheat" attempted the same absurd argument.

9/11: The North Flight Path (official Release), Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path"

Speed based on Radar

His previous two "papers" were also summarily debunked.

Warren Stutt Decode Shows Altitude too high to Impact Pentagon

Warren Stutt's admitted lack of expertise with respect to FDR Investigation

RA - PA Correlation, proving the "Altitude Divergence" calculated by Legge/Stutt was due to RA measuring from an object higher than ground level. Fatal to the Legge/Stutt argument.

If Legge/Stutt "Altitude Divergence" calculations were correct, Aircraft would be slamming into the ground. IAD ILS RWY 01R Approach Analysis, Instruments required for IFR Flight Based on Regulation.

Calculations based on Stutt Theory with respect to RA Tracking Capability, proving Stutt's theory false.

Explains Lack Of Attention To Detail in the very first paragraph of the Legge/Stutt "Paper"

Proof of Legge trying to weasel his way out of mis/disinformation he has presented

A Response To Frank Legge And Warren Stutt, P4T rebuttal to Legge/Stutt "Paper" and "Rebuttal"

If you're heading towards Toronto this week, I hope that you'll grant Mr. McKee an interview.

Señor El Once : civil debate is a tactic


Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

Regarding my sympathies with CIT and them getting a bad deal, you wrote:

I don’t think you know the half of it to be honest.


You go on to write (with my emphasis):

People such as “Snowcrash” and Brian Good are beyond civil debate. They aren’t capable of it. I’ve only been aware of this evidence for 3 years and I’m pissed off with their tactics and cowardice.

Later you write:

Kid gloves are off with these idiots.

Actually, civil debate is a tactic that is very effective. When your opponents deviate from such decorum, your best defense is to continue to take the high road in maintaining your civility. In other words, keep the gloves on.

Also in my experience here with Mr. Brian Good and some of his predecessors (e.g., "Agent Albury Smith" as I affectionately grew to call him), he can be very civil if you establish that and maintain it in your own responses. Mr. SnowCrash can be civil as well from what I've read elsewhere on internet. The opponent who deviates from civility repeatedly in response to courteous messages loses the PR campaign in a major way, while building a stock pile of ammunition around their feet that will be used against them in a Bugs Bunny match-holding sort of a way.

Example: An opponent's message can be parsed for two elements. One is the salient points that your civil message will address, and the other is the ad hominems. Their own ad hominems swept together into a bulleted list can at some point be laid at their feet, this is what you've written about me. The most embarrassing and repeated slurs lose their sting to hurt the intended target when stockpiled together in this way as a score-card of mendacy.

Among their bot-tactics that annoyed me was their repetition and rehashing of the same ground over and over. Because each and every posting from them has the potential but not necessarily the requirement to be an opportunity to respond with civil truth, as best understood, participating in the first cycle is important.

In new forums, recognize that a portion of the audience might be new or even much-latter-day-lurkers. Therefore, using "goto links" to outside forums to seemingly nip repetitive discussions in the bud to claim victory may fail in convincing late-day-readers if the destination link goes away at some future time. Within a single forum when discussions get circular, "goto links" to other threads within the forum is a different story.

[Point of clarification: relevant quotations and links to the source are always appreciated, except when the quoted text is a trick to circumvent civility and re-ignite a flame war.]

You guys brought your CIT fight to Mr. McKee's Truth & Shadows blog. The playing field is stilted towards civility, and that it how it should be played and "some balls grown."

Señor El Once : relevance of real world identities to salient discussion can be a straw man


Dear Mr. SnowCrash,

Due to moderating delays, I did not see this posting when I composed my response above at September 10, 2011 at 8:29 am. Please give it a read before your next posting so that you will understand how Mr. McKee's home-court tilts.

Regarding who has the balls to reveal themselves on the internet, we'll leave that to former Congressmen.

The relevance of real world identities to salient discussion can be a straw man. Straw burns, and rather fast. This is why we shouldn't be playing with matches, particularly around the loose straw of who we all are and where we make our nests to rest our weary heads.

In my opinion, the only time aliases are dishonest is when multiples are employed in the same thread by the same individual without equating the aliases in a dubious ploy to stilt the perception on the numbers of supporters to some hypothesis.

Having been through the alias-ASS-ociating game before, I have learned that it is okay to point out one time that two aliases might be the same individual. Taking their admission or denial to the alias-ASS-ociating accusation at face value is always the best course of action. After all, we want our own word on a matter that we alone are the most knowledgeable -- who we are and are not -- to be taken and trusted as such. Continuing the accusations despite (or without) a denial is a distraction, and could backfire if the accusation is in fact an error.

We leave lots of internet finger prints, some of which can be picked up by those who have home-court advantage. Those with a badge and a need to know have them all. Thus, ultimately truth will be revealed.

Señor El Once : Don't we all resemble that?


Dear Mr. SnowCrash,

You wrote: "You [CIT/Flyover] have been successfully marginalized."

Spoken like an accomplished military objective. Marginalization, however, does not equate to being wrong.

You wrote: "anonymous, faceless, nameless troll without balls."

Don't we all resemble that?

Señor El Once : bothers me as much as Bruce Wayne's frequent outings as Batman


Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

Mr. Brian Good's many different online aliases bothers me as much as Bruce Wayne's frequent outings as Batman, or the actor who portrays Peter Parker who is the Spiderman alias. In a historical Ben Franklin sort of a way, a pen-name is deployed to become the lightning rod and troll magnet that benefits from a fresh start, a new alias, in a new publication. Ben Franklin took eventual credit for all of his "on paper" alter-egos and aliases, because he stood behind his words.

Señor El Once : the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge


Dear Mr. Chandler,

I studied the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge.

The core piece of information — the flight data recorder from the Pentagon plane — has authentication issues and chain-of-custody issues right and left. The kicker for me was the original FDR information was missing the final four seconds. Along comes a mysterious “John Farmer” who found a way to re-build/extract the flight path of those final four seconds. Lo and behold, the path went smoothly into the Pentagon, despite being in disagreement with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low.

Why were those final four seconds missing from the FDR?
Why weren't they originally decoded, because they represent the money-shot time period?
Seems to me if the FDR really did have such a smooth flight-path into the Pentagon, it would have been made public sooner.

Back to the disagreement of the final four seconds with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low. Those readings are explained away in your paper as being in error, owing to the aircraft speed, without analysis of why they would be in error and the direction that error would take. In other words, does a pressure-based altimeter give off measurements that are higher or lower than actual altitude when speed is increased?

The pressure based altimeter at high speed and high altitude is known to introduce errors. My meager research on the subject does not show indications of errors at low altitude at high speed or how the error would be manifested.

Thus, Mr. Chandler, in case you didn't recognize it, the above is a lynch-pin in your whole paper's premise, and it is one that you haven't proven.

As for the "NOC flight path being physically implausible", this is only true if you are trying to get a NOC flight path to also swerve and account for light-pole damage and holes in the Pentagon. Separating the flight path from the inflicted damage, then a NOC flight path is not out of the question. Who ever or what ever piloted the downward spiral could also land whatever the aircraft really was on a supposedly too short Reagan Airport Runway. They also could have flown it to other destinations with hardly anyone paying a lot of attention, because planes taking off and landing are pretty normal for the Reagan airport.

None of the 9/11 planes each with hundreds of thousands of serial numbered parts that could uniquely identify the exact aircraft have had such evidence presented to the public. Thus, doubt persists. First responders at the Pentagon reported seeing bodies. The distinction, however, is rarely made: passenger in the aircraft or victim at work in the Pentagon? If there was no aircraft that hit the building but we were led to believe there was, then the merging of the victims from planes would merge with victims from the building.

The Pentagon is full of people who take orders and who essentially plan for war (or defense) as their livelihood. Orders not to talk about 9/11 have been given. (Even NY first responders were given such gag orders.) I suspect we'll be able to find very little truth coming from the Pentagon, because doubt and confusion serves them better.

On another subject from the beginning of your paper, you write:

One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed. ... Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by "dustification" of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of "directed free energy". 1 It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions.

First of all, this comment was irrelevant to your paper. It has more the appearance of you and Mr. Legge setting up your own broad-brush straw man.

Secondly, "dustification" of the steel is a misrepresentation of Dr. Wood's book. If you read it rather than skimmed it, you would know this. I am now in the camp of directed energy weapons, due to their ease in installation and targeting. They turned water molecules that were trapped within content into steam, whose expanding volumic pressure blew apart the content containers, leaving dust and steam. 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 "dircted free energy" from the weatherman-conspiracy to completely unreport Hurrican 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? The latter at least would explain the anomalous radiation readings. 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.

Third, Dr. Wood raises important questions about energy requirements. She compiles lots of evidence that most in the truth movement do not address, thereby making their theories the weaker ones. She questions some of the evidence that we were led to believe. Glowing does not always equate to hot.

An objective analysis of the evidence (and connections) in Dr. Wood's textbook is required. Your hand-wavy dismissal doesn't cut it. Make it your next peer-reviewed effort.

Señor El Once : Making the Movement look ridiculous?


Dear Mr. Chandler,

Allow me to provide some perspective. About the time their first term was over, the Bush Administration had 47 major scandals that individually would have brought down any other administration. True to Karl Rove's remarks to a reporter (paraphrased): "We are an empire now and create our own realities. While you are judiciously analyzing one, we will have created two or three other realities." The Bush Administration kept piling it on. With the help of a complicit corporate media constantly framing President Bush as a war president and projecting American flags waving proudly behind the logos of the day -- "America at War", "The Global War on Terror", "The War against Terror" --, with sound-bite reporting, and with the telly-viewing public's short attention span, details on the scandal four or five scandals ago leaked at the right time overshadowed the scandal-of-the-day and kept dots from being connected.

9/11 was this "pile it on" modus operandus in miniture. One hijacked and crashed aircraft would have been analyzed to death like one space shuttle disaster. Four, however, pile it on and play against each other, whereby details from one get mixed in the others so that the public's cognitive dissonance will happily avoid a headache and settle on theories advertized as Occam Razor, coincidentally the very conspiracy theories promoted by the corporate media and govt spokemen before the dust of the towers had even settled.

The fact is that each of the four need to be viewed separately where techniques for one (inserted faked radar blips) may or may not have been used for another (cruise missile). In the case of the destruction of the WTC complex, redundant and supplementary destructive mechanisms from one building do not have to equate to that of another.

I take issue with a small passage in the joint statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole

There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?

The demolition of the towers clearly had origins within them. Framing this "crazy" notion as space lasers is deceitful on two counts. One is that it attempts to take off of the table how lasers (or directed energy weapons) might have legitimately been used within the towers to achieve the pulverization on content. The other is that it attempts to take space lasers off the table where they might legitimately apply, like being responsible for 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. What was the telly weatherman-conspiracy on the morning of 9/11? Before planes were hijacked, the conspiracy was not to report Hurricane Erin at it closest point to NYC although they'd been tracking and reporting it all week.

A second part of your strawman passage was: "Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms." I am a no-planer of the "September Clues" school, such a duped useful idiot am I. However, I do not endorse holograms. In fact, those who promote holograms are usually not in the no-planer camp, such as yourself. They are detractors who try to mis-frame and ridicule the supportable theory of no-planes by adding elements as you have done with this attempt at an off-hand dismissal.

What is the A to Z extent of the proof that commercial planes hit the towers? Pixels on the telly. It is not a hangar of meticulously excavated airplane parts with serial numbers that matched the documented maintenance records of the commercial planes. We have seen pixels on the telly do remarkable things with regards to special effects over the years, but that doesn't make it real.

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. All of the things you ridicule? Lasers -- space-based or spire-based within the towers -- and no-commercial-planes via telly pixels? These have not been debunked. Ridiculed? For sure. Definitively proven wrong with evidence, etc.? Nope.

In fact, as a physics teacher, Mr. Chandler, you owe it to yourself to explore "September Clues" in your next peer-reviewed effort after your peer-reviewed piece on Dr. Wood's textbook, because the lack of crash physics at the towers is one of the glaring pieces of evidence that expose how we were manipulated with television.

  • Where was the deformation of the aluminum aircraft upon impact with the steel tower designed to withstand such force?
  • Measuring the speed of the plane's tail, how could it enter the steel towers at the same speed it flew through thin air?
  • How come the wings didn't sheer off in the sudden deceleration we expected but didn't see?
  • The Pentagon plane supposed had its wings folded back upon impact with its face, which is (supposedly) why the hole there is smaller than a real plane. So why didn't the wings on the 2nd WTC plane fold up where the steel tower walls were stronger than the Pentagon's concrete walls?
  • Why did the wings out to their very tippy tips leave a Road-Runner outline on the face of the tower?
  • Aluminum wings slicing steel like butter?
  • Back to measuring the speed of the plane's tail, how was this faster at sea level than the rated maximum of the aircraft at altitude?
  • Why do the various videos (44 of them, I believe) have discrepancies in flight path?
  • Regarding the miracle triple zoom shot from the helicopter to capture the final seconds of impact, why don't we see the plane where its calculate speed says it should be when playing the footage backwards and look at the zoom out's?

You think that exploring the totality of the evidence into the areas of advanced technology and computer generated imagery tars the movement. However, it is still open for debate what the absurdly false theories are. The fuel a media circus? Gee, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been trying to get that for a decade and would be a damn good thing, because such a media circus would have brought awareness to the public, something the govt and complicit corporate media actively suppressed.

Making the Movement look ridiculous? What does this is not taking the discussion where it needs to go. What better way to steer (and tar) the movement.

Señor El Once : started but didn't finish it


Dear Mr. Chandler,

A 500 page book, albeit with 500 large pictures, and all you can come up with in your good, bad, and ugly book report to supposedly debunk it in its entirety is that you started but didn't finish it, because you had better things to do with your time?! How well does this excuse fly with you when lobbed by one of your high school students? Thought so.

Would one of those "better things" be the "totally disgusting" paper that you co-authored with Frank Legge and that contained glaring weaknesses pointed out above in this thread, but also as it turns out years before? How was it that Mr. Legge pulled the wool over your eyes, Mr. Chandler, that you would participate in such a farce? I suppose money does talk, and it is embarrassing what our nation pays you teachers, so I don't necessarily blame you for compromising your scientific integrity and taking some cheese while you could.

Regarding your perimeter wall unit falling ahead of the rest of the debris and then emitting a puff of smoke before accelerating dramatically in a change of direction. Wonderful observation, Mr. Chandler. Yes, it is another unambiguous smoking gun proof of explosives.

And now you want me to explain that with space beams.

For starters, I have never asserted 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. My wild-ass speculation is that 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, something like nano-thermite could blow the bolts connecting the outer mesh together.

Of course, your space beams comment reflects how little of Dr. Judy Wood's book that you read. Maybe you and I can agree one day that elements of her book are disinformation. Your task, though, was to find them and prove them as such. You haven't. More importantly, your task was to recognize the nuggets of truth in her evidence, preserve them, and assure that whatever theories you promote also address them. This you haven't done either. (What sort of grade would you give your students for such piddly efforts?)

Because you are so flippant in your space beams comment and are so eager to see how space beams could potentially account for the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, I will indulge you in your little game and set aside for the sake of discussion my belief and its alignment with yours regarding the deployment of explosives. However, I will change your stilted framing from space beams to directed energy weapons (DEW). Why? Because DEW could be planted within the towers. The power-down periods in various weekends leading up to 9/11 could very well have served to install energy diverters that would, when required, re-route building power to DEW devices.

What happens when an inflated but unknotted balloon is let go? The force of the escaping air pushes the remnants of the balloon dramatically in a change of direction, no? What happens when you microwave excessively some liquid in a sealed tupperware container? Due to the fact that the lid's seal is the weak part of the container, the internal pressure generated by the transition of the liquid into a gas will cause the lid to pop off dramatically in a change of direction.

My premise is that most/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, 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.

Keeping with your challenge that DEW has to explain the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, we simply have to speculate that maybe that piece of debris had something (other than explosives, right?) attached to it or in its composition such that when it fell into the electromagnetic or other types of energy fields associated with DEW -- whether those fields were direct or accidentally reflected --, the rapid change of state of its composition caused it to launch itself like a released balloon into a change of direction.

Do I truly believe this for the example in your video? No. Do I disagree with your premise that nano-thermite may have been an accelerant on that piece of debris to turn it into a rocket projectile? No.

9/11 was an overly thorough and redundant operation. I have never discounted that nano-thermite may have been involved as one of the mechanisms of destruction. The issue has always been: nano-thermite cannot explain all of the features of the destruction and its aftermath.

Speaking of math, do 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? Make it simple and assume, say, 4 weeks.

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 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.

Wild-ass speculation on my part. They had milli-nuclear reactors or cold-fusion reactors plugged into the building's power lines that were diverted to power the DEW devices at two or three levels (including a lower level to clean up after themselves). Both towers had spires or residual structure left standing after floors and walls seemingly collapsed around them, because they supported the DEW devices for a time and the destructive energy was directed away from its support. The measured radiation levels can be attributed to the power sources, as can the hot-spots (e.g., fizzling nuclear material). Whatever they used to power DEW was booby-trapped, say, in a blanket of nano-thermite to burn up the encasement of the power source, which conveniently explains the traces of nano-thermite from places where hot-spots burned. The fields created by both DEW and the energy source can explain much of the anomaloous damage to vehicles.

Yes, elements of my wild-ass speculation are probably wrong, and I want them corrected. However, they are closer to the truth than your limited thinking and purposeful braking of the 9/11 Truth Movement from exploring the energy requirements (best documented by Dr. Wood). Your dismissive comments and premature parking at nano-thermite are just that, and they lack substance.

Go back and try again, Mr. Chandler. And this time, read the book first, because your book review from the lofty position of not having read it... well? You and everyone else gets the picture.

Señor El Once : CIT Understanding


Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

Could you please assist with my understanding? Correct me where I'm wrong.

The OCT is that the designated commercial aircraft flew the path that led to the lightpole damage and damage to the building. This has lots of problems, like the amazing Pentagon lawn, the aluminum aircraft punching neat circular holes through inner courtyard walls, the small amount of aircraft parts, and never definitively matching serial numbered parts from the destruction to the maintenance records of the designated aircraft.

Arguments get in a bit of loop from this point on, because witnesses all report seeing a plane and not a cruise missile that might have accounted for the actual damage. It should be pointed out that "seeing a plane" does not equate with "seeing a plane impact the Pentagon, due to vantage points and terrain features." Many 9/11 analysts say: "The flight path damage together with witnesses seeing a plane in the air must mean the OCT on this account must be true, despite the other issues with the commercial plane."

CIT discovered witnesses who say the plane flew "North of the Citgo" (NOC). The problem this presents is that the

- If something hit the Pentagon, it wasn't the commercial aircraft we were told about. Lots of issues to the OCT including never , the inability of such an aircraft to punch the neat circular holes through multiple concrete walls, etc.

- Witnesses don't report seeing a cruise missile; they report seeing a plane. This then circles back to the OCT, except that few (or none) witnesses saw the plane impact, because of their obstructed view. They assume the plane they saw impacted the tower.

- A surprising number of witnesses saw a NOC flight path.

Señor El Once : Disruptors


Dear Mr.,

I have written my advice regarding Mr. A. Wright elsewhere. In essence, don't waste too many keystrokes on him. You wrote (sequence altered by me):

It is truly time to take a unified stand FOR justice and AGAINST the disruptors who infiltrate our peaceful forums. ... Readers, it is time for us to take the hard stance on infiltration. We must identify the disruptors. One way to neutralize disruptors is to take away their posting priveliges. Another way is simply to ignore them.

The sour taste your jihad leaves in my mouth is that you are condoning detours into flame wars as you root out the disruptors, making more of a disruption in the process. With the exception of the line right out of one of Jesus's sermons, "turn the other cheek" that you most eloquently wrote as: "Another way is simply to ignore them."

It isn't just "another way"; it is really "the way."

In every play, movie, novel, and discussion board, conflict is used as a healthy plot tool to make the production interesting. Sincerely held and honestly defended differences of opinion supported by evidence, fact, and objective and reasoned argument should be our lofty goals.

Infiltration is going to happen. Has probably already happened. Will continue to happen. If it didn't happen, it would be a major affront to Mr. McKee that his sincere and honest blogging efforts didn't merit the assignment of at least one NSA Q-groupie or Q-bot in fulfilling a Dr. Cass Sunstein recommendation to the Presidency regarding infiltrating every blog, chat room, and discussion forum to yada, yada yada.

Rest assured that Mr. McKee will handle disrespectful and disruptive behavior. But we don't need to add fuel to it by condoning "Agent ASS-ociating" style flame wars. Don't get me wrong, because even I will sometimes let fly a "Dear Agent so-and-so" honorific in exasperation to some repetitive or predictable Q-bot tactic. I'm just cautioning all participates to avoid making such detours the entire substance of your posting. In the oh-oh seconds before publishing a posting in such a vein, seriously consider "the way" above of "ignoring them and therefore maybe do not post it. Why?

Because an insincerely held and dishonestly defended difference of opinion unsupported by evidence, fact, and objective and reasoned argument becomes self-evident to all readers. Less is more, so a very brief congratulatory message making note of some aspect of this goes a long way.

Señor El Once : Me? A Disruptor?


Dear Mr.,

Me? A disruptor because I drop Dr. Judy Wood links? Oh me, oh my. And what about the fact that I also openly champion no-planes? I guess that makes me a double threat on the disruptor front. But it doesn't make me wrong.

You'll have to do better than that to convince this useful idiot (and the readers of this blog) that Dr. Wood and September Clues aren't on to something.

You don't have to trust me as a source. In fact, it is better that readers don't. I would prefer that you and the readers objectively and open-mindedly pursue the matter and validate/invalidate each and every point. But do let me know when something gets debunked, so won't be all alone and believing the wrong thing. Do you have your copy of Dr. Wood's textbook? Have you pin-pointed the disinformation? What about any nuggets of truth?

The issue is that the energy questions aren't being asked, so they aren't being answered. They are being ignored. Dr. Wood at least "goes there." And her research hasn't been debunked. It has been ridiculed and belittled, but not debunked. Please note the distinction.

September Clues runs a parallel path: ridiculed and belittled, but not debunked.

If you want to take personal offense that I consider you the devil (or infiltrator) that we know, so be it. I guess it comes from your bi-polar nature on Truth and Shadows. One minute, you're handing out laurels of honor. (That must be the "ingratiate part" of infiltration.) The next moment you're condemning others as being sly infiltrators. (I don't know enough about Mr. Syed thus putting me on the fence, but I do know that your smear campaign against him to depict him in such light doesn't convince me of anything except to reflect such light back on you.)

If you want to compare your opinions with intestinal gases, so be it. On that account, you missed the analogy. You accuse others of “INFILTRATE, SET-UP, and STING” with little proof. Yet from my tiny direct interaction with you and larger indirect reading, this is exactly the gaseous impression I got of your website before it was too far along in its illustrious 8 month run. Admittedly, I didn't follow it very closely. Your early avoidance of the massive energy question was all I needed to avoid you and your website: you weren't being honest. Honesty would dictate that milli-nukes or DEW and video fakery be openly considered.

You wrote:

If you truly believe the Judy Wood/nukes and/or DEW theories are valid, then, I encourage you to pursue those theories.

I have pursued them. I distill the wisdom of my efforts here.

I leave the door open that I might be wrong. Convince me otherwise. As is my duped useful idiot nature, I'll gladly change my mind in the face of the truth. The only fly in that ointment is that I'm educated (in engineering) and I think.

Maybe if enough evidence comes out and enough people support it, maybe those theories, too, might one day find that great acceptance that other research has such as Pilots, CIT, A&E, Steven Jones, etc.

The great acceptance? Poor framing on that one.

One day, the views I expressed here on DEW and video fakery will be self-evident to the educated and open-minded. The overkill totality of the destruction exhibited in the videos should be clues enough of massive energy imbalances. The extent of the ruse will be known, as will the extent of the infiltration to limit the discussion strictly...

Final point. Honest Truthers do indeed have an agenda: truth. With this truth, I want wars ended and corrupt govt's overthrown.

Señor El Once : A Missing Link


Dear Ms. Kate,

Some mighty fine links are presented above (by Mr., including the one from Mr. A. Wright to, because the contrast is useful in discerning truth. 9/11 Myths doesn't debunk much, and actually has more problems in its "don't think too much" conclusions -- go with our simple explanation and avoid headaches. Your govt tax dollars at work.

One link that was missing is to Dr. Judy Wood's website. I know, I know. She has been ridiculed and marginalized as being bat-shit crazy. Ridiculed and belittled is not the same as debunked.

Truth does not mind if you turn up your disinformation sensors to their highest sensitivity levels when you review her work. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that her work is full of disinformation. Your task, then, becomes to mine the nuggets of truth that make up the foundation upon which the disinformation was built.

The major clue to keep in mind when reviewing her work is that she presents a wealth of raw evidence that the other theories inadequately address, if they address at all. Most don't address it. The destruction of vehicles and the pulverization of content are two such examples.

I consider myself a duped useful idiot who can have his opinions easily changed by evidence, science-based fact, and persuasive argument. The catch is that I'm educated (in engineering) and I think for myself. The energy requirements of the destruction aren't being addressed, which is why I was a champion of milli-nukes for so long. Dr. Wood's textbook convinced me of DEW.

Disclaimer: I have no affiliations with Dr. Wood and receive no gain, financial or otherwise, for championing her work.

Having said this, her textbook "Where did the Towers Go?" is a must-have for any serious researcher of 9/11 and a worthy addition to anyone's 9/11 library. It is a quality textbook in a larger format with over 500 color images and correlations to map positions that alone make the tome worth its money, despite the very real possibility that the plain text may be ridiculed and belittled as disinformation. I haven't found such, and I'm still awaiting evidence from others to prove such. And if we assume that such disinformation will be found, we'll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to prove to our grandkids how our generation was played.

I put my money where my mouth is. Because many rational people will not typically invest in something that is labeled kooky, loony, and crazy (albeit such labeling book reviews were offered from the lofty position of not owning it, not having borrowed it, and not having cracked it open), I have been known to purchase copies for others (e.g., prominent members of 9/11 truth) -- if given their expressed permission -- so that we could literally get on the same page in discussing it. Silence is what I've heard.

Well, not complete silence. David Chandler did not agree to my conditions that he give the book an objective review providing me with the good, the bad, and the ugly. and that he assist getting a copy or lending his copy to Jonathon Cole. Mr. Chandler did put in a couple of dismissive sentences into his recent paper co-authored with Frank Legge, although Dr. Wood and DEW had nothing to do with that paper, and that paper has fundamental and lynchpin issues of its own that discredit it.

Señor El Once : PFT and CIT at the Pentagon associated with other theories


Dear Mr. Marquis,

I can understand why you do not want PFT and CIT at the Pentagon associated with other theories, such as Simon Shack's September Clues and no-planes at the WTC. They are separate events with separate implementation factors.

However, you cannot deny that a real plane flying over the Pentagon equates to no plane hitting the Pentagon, and the extent of their efforts to perpetrate such a ruse while preserving their flying asset. Although the large area over which debris was spread in Shanksville also indicates that some sort of real plane was involved, the OCT spouts that the crash hole without evidence of a plane also fits into a no-plane (in hole) motif. Together they are two data points between which a trend line can be drawn.

Is it coincidence that this no-plane (in the damage) trend line castes a shadow of doubt on the reality of WTC planes, that gets darker when the pixel evidence is reviewed more closely?

I'm the dupetest duped useful idiot in this here McKee forum, such is the extent of my open-mindedness and objectivity. Evidence and correctly applied science are what help me achieve my present views on 9/11, which embarrassingly circumscribe both no-(commercial)-planes-at-the-WTC ala Mr. Shack as well as the DEW theories of the most villified member of the 9/11 Truth Movement (in particular by the 9/11 Truth Movement itself) Dr. Judy Wood.

I'll be the first to admit that I could be wrong. I am waiting for the evidence and correctly applied science to separate the nuggets of truth from the disinformation in such theories. If you have details on where Simon Shack ventures into disinformation, please do indeed share, so that I'm not left believing the wrong thing in my duped useful idiotness. Otherwise, I kindly ask you to refrain from labeling it "disinformation," because I'm sure you've experienced such unproductive "disinformation-labeling" cycles with regards to CIT and how it unnecessarily consumes energies. Let's let the evidence and science expose the truth.

Señor El Once : A Good Purposeful Misframing of the Evidence


Dear Mr. Good,

You wrote:

To conclude that bad FDR data (as processed by some unknown person of unknown competence) proves flyover is just loopy.

A purposeful misframing of the evidence. The "bad FDR data processed by some unknown person of unknown competence" with the barometer altimeter 120 feet out of synch with the radio altimeter is just one nugget that disproves a plane flying into the building. Had the plane flown into the building, there would have been no reason to release bad FDR data that required further post-release processing "by some unknown person of unknown competence".

You write:

Nobody saw it fly away, and there is nowhere it could have flown away.

Overstating your case again, Mr. Good. One witness on the East loading dock did see a plane fly away. Of course, he was badgered so badly (by someone trying to prove the opposite of flyover) that short of a court order he won't talk to anyone anymore.

You write:

Sergeant Mark Williams said he saw bodies strapped in their seats. Unless you’re willing to call Sergeant Williams a liar to his face, you’ve got no business making the silly claims you do.

You mean, Mr. Good, you have never worked in a cube farm where your office chair has seat belts to prevent you from falling on the floor and injuring yourself when the boredom puts you to sleep on the job? Where have you been? This is state of the art.

Where are the others who along with Sergeant Williams saw (and helped remove) both the bodies of ONI employees as well as bodies of alleged plane passengers strapped in seats? Why don't you go interview them? And given the alleged intense heat that melted the aluminum aircraft, how is that bodies on the alleged plane escaped being vaporized? (Where are the pictures? I've only seen a couple of this nature, and they could have been staged and taken from anywhere.)

Oh, that's right. The Pentagon hasn't released the videos, because they don't have to and everyone asking can just go jump in a lake. Therefore, they don't have to cough up any other military or first responder witnesses (or pictures) to bodies strapped to seats.

What happens when it is discovered that Sergeant Mark Williams was ordered to lie? Are you going to call patriotic Sergeant Mark Williams a liar to his face then? What about his superiors who gave the order? You know, the same very superior space aliens who strew your path with nails and open a trap door in your lawn to swallow you up and inject you with liquid determination to venture forth into the wild realms of cyber-space and engage in pointless battles?

Señor El Once : without the benefit of the belief of airplane impacts would have been intolerably risky


Mr. Good wrote:

For an airplane to penetrate the perimeter columns is predictable. The box columns at that height were built of 3/8" and 1/4" plate. Also note the wing tanks had fuel in them. Imagine a full beer can lobbed at your face at 500 mph.

This is the issue: the airplane penetration did not match what was predicted. Prediction is that a full beer can lobbed at a steel baseball bat at 500 mph would exhibit different effects, such as deceleration and deformation of the beer can, messy beer spilling everywhere, etc. Would the beer can have sliced the steel baseball bat? In this analogy, however, the tower represents a series of baseball bats evenly spaced, while the tip-to-tip on the wings represents a bunch of beer cans. Some penetration into the towers through the window slit portion was to have been expected as the tower's steel sliced the wings, but full wing tip-to-tip penetration and tail penetration at its speed through thin air? That defies physics predictions.

Even if the planes did not fully penetrate, the fuel would. Landing gear, the engines, the wingbox and the keel would. This would provide sufficient rationalization for the official collapse theory.

I agree with the first sentence. As for the second sentence, rationalization does not have to equate with truth or reality. A rationalization is a fancy way of justifying a belief based supposedly on reason. Clearly, the whole premise of airliners hitting the towers was a fundamental part of the official conspiracy theory to rationalize the sudden onset of their destruction. But as you well know, only through skewed physics can any damage attributed to airplanes be rationalized to explain the thoroughness and speed of the destruction.

The collapses were were exposed as controlled. Our problem is getting people to care–and unfortunately, credibility-killing 9/11 fantasies make it easy for people to laugh it all off.

Just like supposedly wild-ass fantasies can be credibility-killing (e.g., jello destroyed the towers), so can official govt rationalizations that don't align with physics predictions and are thus lies to thinking science-educated people.

Getting people to care about the truth or become informed is easy. The bigger issue is to get them to act on their knowledge. We are all individual ants facing against the massive machine.

Even if it were true that “all” amateur video of the event was from media-connected persons, the perps had no control over who could and could not shoot video.

Not completely true. The public was pushed several blocks away from the towers. Other buildings obstructed views from people on the street; close proximity to tall buildings limits views of skies and other buildings. Today, cellphones have video cameras. In 2000, how common was that? How many average Joe's would have carried their video cameras with them to work and/or had them readily available as they ran for their lives? How close were they to the action? How consistently would they have filmed?

Cellphone service was spotty. Interference could have been on purpose. The number of videos that caught the alleged second plane is actually pretty high, attributable to media-connected people. The errors in those videos is what castes them in a new light.

Thus to attempt to blow up the towers without the benefit of airplane impacts would be intolerably risky–just as risky as flying anything other than a 757 into the Pentagon, or flying a 757 away from the Pentagon.

They did blow up WTC-7 without the benefit of even an alleged direct hit by an airplane, so confident were they in being able to control the media and the message given to the public. Yes, WTC-7 is discussed regularly by the 9/11 truth movement, and broadcast news videos shows them discussing it on 9/11. After 9/11? How long was WTC-7 suppressed in any of the mainstream media? Given that the 9/11 Truth Movement had to come up with the "Building What?" campaign, one could argue about the ongoing complicit media cover-up into 9/11 with WTC-7 being exhibit A. (What about WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6 and their anomalous damage?)

No, only blowing up the towers without the benefit of the belief of airplane impacts would have been intolerably risky. Same applies to the Pentagon and Shanksville. Without the belief of an airplane, all forms of rationalizations fail because they would involve the govt. The belief of airplanes is truly the only thing that doesn't rat out the govt and corporate media as suspects number 1.

Señor El Once : appreciate Mr. Good for all of his God-given virtues


Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,

You wrote:

Brian Good should not be encouraged. Any entity who poses as being for one side of a debate and clumsily attempts to pose for the other under a different name, has an agenda. He is a wordsmith and a troll.

As a former (and possibly future) wordsmith myself and speaking for Mr. McKee on this matter as well, I can say that wordsmithing is honorable. It is a habit that should be encouraged by all. "Think twice before posting once... edit, edit, edit."

I can certainly see where you are coming from when you say that Mr. Good should not be encouraged (to post). This is more true for other agents and Q-bots than it is with Mr. Good.

Alas, without some (contrived) conflict, everything from novels to movies to Dear Abby to this blog would be extremely boring.

Here's how you can appreciate Mr. Good for all of his God-given virtues as our resident... shall we say... dissenter. In his respectful and wordsmithy way, he does indeed pick at weaknesses.

If you've ever played the ancient oriental board game of "Go", an effective strategy is to attack your opponent from your weakness. Why? If you attack from your strong area, you only make a strong area stronger and the weak area remains weak or weaker or gets surrounded and killed. On the other hand, if you attack from your weak area, the battle will make the weak area stronger, leaving you with two strong areas to connect themselves together and push out the opponent. And even when the weak area is doomed despite the battle, it can retain influence.

When Mr. Good makes a posting, you can either respond or tenuki (not respond to him; ignore; play/respond to something else). When applicable and productive, Mr. Good's postings can be an opportunity to express truth, which will be invaluable to the latter-day lurkers. Of course, tenukying is best when the whole theme is repetitive or an unproductive detour.

The thing to watch out for is articulate Mr. Good's penchant for twisting (your) words and meaning in disingenous ways.

Mr. OneSliceShort, you seemingly accuse Mr. Good of clumsily attempts to pose ... under a different name. Maybe it happened here (Winston?), maybe it didn't. Maybe he did it elsewhere. Doesn't matter. Mr. Good knows how Mr. McKee's home court tilts. He has been a respectful and worthy (albeit sometimes frustrating) opponent.

So, like in Go, learn to pick and choose your battles. Tenuki when you get a chance, because just like Mr. Good's postings open the door for you to respond (with truth), your postings to him open the door for him to respond and potentially lead you down the garden path and twist things.

Mr. Good doesn't respond to me directly too much anymore. I think it is because he already knows that I cultivate my bat-shit crazy 9/11 image via my championing of video fakery (ala September Clues) and directed energy weapons (ala Dr. Judy Wood). On the one hand, he probably figures he can't improve upon my bat-shit crazy perfection by calling other reader's attention to it. On the other hand, he can't go there, because it gives me the stage to respond and he doesn't have much that can refute such bat-shit crazy topics without making weak aspects of my premise even stronger in the battle.

By the way, I don't relish being bat-shit crazy and alone on these two themes. I can be convinced of other conclusions given sufficient evidence and science-backed reason. Political reasons? Because it sounds too bat-shit crazy and isn't mainstream 9/11 enough? Yeah, well, they said the same thing about Punk Rock, and I've lived long enough to hear it played as elevator music in my fitness club. Go figure.

Señor El Once : Jonathon Kay


Dear Mr. McKee,

I was writing a detailed response to Mr. Kay, but thankfully time limitations prevented me from finishing it, otherwise even more time would have been wasted in a fruitless endeavor. Here is something I've mined from that un-posted rough draft.

Mr. Kay doesn't distinguish between originating members of the conspiracy and those in the aftermath who are astute enough to see which way the wind is blowing and where financial gain will be won, and thus become opportunistic members of the conspiracy to cover up the orginal conspiracy.

I wrote the above in reference to "of course the 9/11 Commission wasn't in on the original conspiracy" but will get swallowed up in my grander conspiratorial organizations.

Upon reflection on the true eely nature of Mr. Kay, by golly doesn't his book and promotional interviews line up squarely with opportunistic late-to-the-party members of the conspiracy in how he carries water for it?

Mr. Kay can't be bothered to view the original video of the faked Osama bin Laden confession. Thus, he probably won't waste his time watching CIA operative Susan Lindauer and what she knew.!

Here are some highlights for me:

21:00 She said that in the months prior to 9/11, they were told to expect planes. Plane hijackings were the expectation. Thus, plane hijackings (or the belief thereof) was a key role.

Of course to me as a no-planer, I see this as early ground work in the establishment of the ruse. Ms. Lindauer makes plain, the supposed hijackers were CIA assets, through and through. Patsies. She is also convinced that no plane hit the Pentagon.

25:00 She talks about all of NYC being too dangerous to visit in the time period (months) leading up to 9/11 when they didn't know when it was to happen, because the thinking was that it would involve nukes and radiation fallout. Although I champion DEW nowadays, I was an active supporter of nukes, because it answers the energy questions of pulverization, the measured radiation levels, and first responder ailments.

32:00 She talks about thermite bombs. Much later, she talks about how between 8/23/2001 and 9/4/2001 (plus or minus a couple of days on either end) how the government has tapes of white vans coming into the WTC for a few hours each day in the early morning after the cleaning crews vans. Moreover, NSA tracked the cleaners' vans and followed them right to their houses. Why would they be keeping such anal surveillance tabs on the lowly employees of an office cleaning organization? Remember, this is before the USA PATRIOT Act.

Ms. Lindauer said plainly at one point (but now paraphrased by me) that we -- the public -- have no idea how big the operation really was, in the spirit that it was more massive, more convoluted, and more "crazy" than what what we -- the public -- have been permitted to imagine without getting labeled kooks by the likes of opportunistic Mr. Kay.

Señor El Once : turn our gaze on corporate media


Dear Mr. McKee,

Quite well done, sir.

Unfortunately, it’s his book that gets reviewed by his mainstream journalistic buddies. The quality work of David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Paul Zarembka and numerous other truthers don’t get a look.

This is a major clue for all people, and particularly for all fringe corners of the 9/11 Truth Movement, to get into focus. Namely, we need to turn our gaze on corporate media.

How many Michael Jackson media circuses have we endured? Brittney Speers? O.J. Simpson? Pick your celebrity. Pick your politician. Pick your hyped (sexual) act.

When mainstream journalists smell blood, they go into a feeding frenzy. Because the advertizing stakes are so high and the rewards so great, they are also not unknown to prick their own fingers to smear a “kick me” on the back of their target for the requisite 15 minutes of infamy to get the circus started.

But not on the subject of 9/11… except to marginalize anyone deviating from the established bedtime story of what happened. Ask yourself, who established the fairy tale? The corporate media who wants nothing more than for everyone to believe that when the backdrop is a “news desk” and the talent are good-looking and authoritive sounding “news readers”, then we can trust that the material they read is objective, impartial, fair and balance.

Because nearly everyone has a weakness for the guilty pleasure of enjoying some form of (allegedly) harmless entertainment served up in movie theaters, in home theaters, on DVDs, on cable, on broadcast television, on radio… few of us have the ability to condemn with conviction such manipulation of our emotions, our perceptions, and our understanding, because we think we can judiciously choose when to turn on and off the clearly fictitious fair.

With the media’s response to 9/11 this past decade, we all should learn that we cannot pick and choose, that we cannot selectively turn on and off, and that the spin to get us turned around and dizzy not only has been ongoing, but was evident and participant in major aspects of those very same 9/11 events.

Corporate media was involved. And this is why Mr. Kay gets promoted and others don’t. They need to cover their ass and keep the illusion going.

Señor El Once : voice morphing not so far fetched


Dear Mr. Zarembka,

Because you may not be familiar with my writing, I should preface my remarks by noting that I represent the educated, rational, articulate fringe who believe the supporting evidence of the bat-shit crazy views of television pixels of planes and directed energy weapons.

Working backwards, if only pixels of planes are needed in the footage at the WTC destination, then the speculation can go to plausible extremes with regards to what happened to the alleged passengers of the alleged aircraft and if the aircraft even flew that day.

You wrote:

I take it from your evaluation that you accept Griffin’s argument that VOICE MORPHING took place even for the late arrivals, that Griffin has persuaded you that the perpetrators had a huge data bank developed over several years of voices of “possible passengers” — as well as identifying information about their family members — and they just invoked a search on 9-11 of such a huge data base to trick recipients of calls.

It just so happens that in the early 1990's I did my master's thesis on voice recognition, the technical details of enabling technology (e.g., software algorithms for Fast-Fourier Transforms, microprocessors, DSP), and what would be required to see voice recognition applications and their nature with respect to hand-held verus server-based, vocabulary words verus number of speakers, etc. Voice morphing has much overlap with voice recognition in terms of enabling technology.

Thus, I counter that voice morphing would not require your assumption of a huge data bank developed over several years of voices of “possible passengers". Certainly, that is one option that I do not rule out.

Voice morphing of an individual could also be implemented with advanced software algorithms that build models of speaker vocal cavity acoustics from a small amount of sampled spoken text. If you were to indulge for a brief moment my premise about real passengers and planes potentially never leaving the ground, we could speculate about what ground-level processing happened to alleged passengers. Physically separated from the others possibly with weapons exposed and pointing unmistakeably in a manner indicating how close to death they were, the imagination runs wild in contemplating the willingness of victims to act along with brief telephone calls. Those who vocally protested or otherwise offered up friendly conversation would provide enough acoustic samples of their vocal cavities and speaking patterns for voice morphing of them in a faked brief telephone call.

You wrote:

Why was it necessary for him to more than double my word length to “really knock it out of the park”? Was my comment so undeserving of the movement for the truth about 9-11 that it need to be “really knocked out of the park”. Am I to be put in place as an enemy of the truth about 9-11? What has he or the movement to gain thereby? What was Griffin’s intention?

Mr. Zaremblka, you might be taking that too personally. In fact, the thin skin was evident by all in-studio participants in that panel interview with Jonathon Kay in that Canadian show.

Here is how I frame it. What you wrote that inspired Mr. Griffin's lengthy response could have been any pitch from fast ball to screw-ball to lobbed under-handed toss. Mr. Griffin took the opportunity of a ball coming over his home plate to connect the sweet spot of his literary bat and enlighten an eager audience regarding thinking outside the box on the voice morphing topic and what could be faked. Hitting it out of the park is what baseball players and writers with baseball metaphors are trained to do.

No, you are not the enemy of truth about 9/11. I look forward to more of your wise words and participation in Mr. McKee's Truth and Shadows.

Señor El Once : speculation is one possibility


Dear Mr. Zaremblka,

Your wrote:

I’m OK, we can speculate on a blog. Your speculation is one possibility.

Yet, when I publish I try not to work from speculations but rather from evidence, and in my chapter in THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, I argued that the evidence supports that all four planes did take off. (Griffin, for one, does not contest that, to the best of my knowledge.) Thus, I have to retain my position that your present speculation is not consistent with the evidence I found previously.

Evidence of four commercial aircraft taking off is good and well. I'll spare us wild-ass speculation regarding how this is separate from whether or not they were occupied and if so, by whom? Morevoer, the curious situation of the aircraft so seemlessly losing their transponder signals along with military exercises that involved insertion/deletion of radar blips call into question the true flight path of such aircraft and whether or not such were landed elsewhere (like Ohio) and its occupants from thence on the ground "processed for the almost-live 9/11 show" that might have involved Plan B understudies for the live actors/victims in the form of voice morphing software, as per my prior bat-shit crazy speculation.

The point remains:

Voice morphing would not require your assumption of a huge data bank developed over several years of voices of “possible passengers”.... Voice morphing of an individual could also be implemented with advanced software algorithms that build models of speaker vocal cavity acoustics from a small amount of sampled spoken text. [deleted], we could speculate about what ground-level processing happened to alleged passengers. Physically separated from the others possibly with weapons exposed and pointing unmistakeably in a manner indicating how close to death they were, the imagination runs wild in contemplating the willingness of victims to act along with brief telephone calls. Those who vocally protested or otherwise offered up friendly conversation would provide enough ac

Señor El Once : The ruse of 9/11 was so vast


Dear Mr. Zarembka,

Certainly, Mr. El Once or Mr. Once are acceptable to avoid Spanish characters. Avoid the redundant form Mr. Señor El Once. Of course, a trick even I use -- because I don't always have an international keyboard enabled -- is to copy my own name from elsewhere in the thread. I'm usually composing off-line in an editor anyway, so the act of pasting it into the editor removes funny formatting and links.

I'll dispatch (b) and (c) quickly. I have no disagreement with you here. I do not defend Griffin for his position on CIT and its evidence.

To a certain degree, though, I can understand it. The ruse of 9/11 was so vast with so many onion layers -- some original, some added later -- that all intelligent and rational people reach a limit in how much more bat-shit crazy theories (albeit well documented and supported) on 9/11 that they're willing to even consider. In a perfect world, WTC-7 coming down with 100 feet (2.25 seconds) of free-fall and with media foreknowledge should have been sufficient to bring wide-spread public awareness and ultimately to clean and restructure govt; no need to contemplate destructive energies and plane pixels to get a trial and justice. Should have been sufficient, but wasn't, because we've been underestimating the extent of media control (thanks to labels like liberal media).

So sadly, when the truth for some of us leads into really whacky territory (plane pixels, DEW, voice morphing, simVictims), its only value potentially is as shock-and-awe for the public to recognize the depth of the ruse and the players. It isn't needed to determine the crime; it is needed to fatham the extent of the crime and how we've been played.

Returning to (a) and voice morphing, my comments regarding how much voice sampling is required to make a model of a speaker for the purposes of faking them, it is neither fiction nor speculation. What is speculation is the extent (or lack thereof) of its deployment on 9/11. When we ask ourselves how the plane-to-ground telephone calls were made -- without working seat-back phones and with cellphones' inability to connect and hand-off from such altitude, speed, and geographic locations -- the puzzle becomes easier to solve when ground-based ruses are contemplated. Voice morphing over crappy cellphone connections/speakers is one way to get cooperation from even unwilling victims once you've gotten them to open their mouths to discuss unrelated topics.

Señor El Once : Computers can do amazing things


Dear Mr. Zarembka,

Over the last decade, I've seen how 9/11 employed learned-lessons from previous operations. One such lesson (from Lockerby) was to not make it a singular aircraft tragedy, but multiple, whereby an advantage is gained by the public's too eager tendency for an easy explanation to sew the multiple events together under a single cause and modus operandus. And when doubts appear with one instance (e.g., UA77 or WTC-7), change the subject to another similar instance (e.g., UA93 or WTC-2).

Through all of the confusion of analysis of these parallel events, I honestly do not recall if any of the planes were finally determined to have had installed and working seat-back telephones. If you imply that UA93 (Shanksville) did, I'll take your word on it. Still, cellphone calls from the air did not happen; if cellphone calls did connect, they were made on the ground either by the cellphone itself or by equipment that could insert the call into the telephone network with the cellphone's number and other finger prints.

In my studied and reasoned opinion, the alleged UA93 did not make a hole in Shanksville. Most likely they fired a missile into the ground. What happened to the real UA93 and its passengers? Did the reported passenger drama occur?

I have my doubts that only get re-enforced by how those on UA93 are propped up as heroes mostly as an under-handed debate technique to steer the audience into emotional territory and away from contemplating other glaring technical incongruities with that story. I become suspicious when I see such abrupt changes in topic from reason to emotion.

[The above was a general statement that does not refer to you or your actions, Mr. Zarembka.]

If I might summarize your point, you evidently are concerned with the late arrivals to UA93 and doubt that their seat-back telephone calls could have been faked using voice morphing techniques. You suggest that it would be unreasonable for their AT&T spying systems (already in place in April 2001) to have collected voice samples over the period of days/weeks prior to 9/11 from all possible passengers, particularly the late arriving ones, and then make these samples instantly available to an on-the-fly voice morphing session to fake a telephone call.

I don't see it as unreasonable. Computers can do amazing things with regards to how fast it can access stored information (e.g., past telephone calls) with which it can build a "speaker model" to then fake a telephone call.

More to my point, voice morphing can be achieved without extensive databases of words spoken by a speaker. Such software systems can build their model of a speaker based on an amazingly short amount of sampled spoken word, such as could be obtained by simply conversing with the to-be-modeled speaker for 5 or 10 minutes or forcing them to read some contrived passage whose topic is irrelevant but hits all of the building-block vocal patterns that go into forming spoken (English) words.

CIT makes an awesome case that no plane hit the Pentagon. The lack of debris in Shanksville is a strong indication that it wasn't a plane. Evidence and science has convinced me that no commercial planes hit the towers, and that we've been duped by pixels on the telly into believing such. The belief in real planes with real passengers was more important to the operation than actual planes/passengers. The pulverization of the WTC-1/2 is another ruse that they've been ardently trying to pin on planes and gravity, when clearly the destruction and its speed were the result of other added energy forces (like DEW from within).

In light of this, fake telephone calls using voice morphing software is easy to swallow as being part of the deployment. Although real victims did die on that day, evidence has convinced me that a significant number of the 3000 death toll were simVictims: photoshopped (& morphed) images and the creation of weak backstories and legends to juke the numbers.

If there is any trend line to the above speculation, it is that the video/audio technology existed that could make major parts of the whole operation easiest to implement as a Hollywood production with truly the lowest risk factor.

Yes, Mr. Zarembka, it has been a pleasure conversing with you. I'm sure that Mr. McKee shares my hopes that you will continue to read his blog and participate when you can.

Señor El Once : fundamentally flawed and illogical


Dear Mr. Wright,

You wrote so eloquently:

The fact that their assessment of evidence is fundamentally flawed and illogical makes that all the more reprehensible.

I am in full agreement... providing the they and their in your statement refer to the government.

The alternative to the CIT hypothesis, which you attack, is the hypothesis that everything trotted out by the govt & media about 9/11 is true. You are eager to accept their witnesses at face value, discounting potential conflicts of interest (those beholden to the govt & media for their livelihood) as well as specific contradictory details that turn them into unreliable witnesses.

You even discount the great number of nose witnesses. Who are the nose witnesses? These are the military personnel with experience in military grade explosives who smelled the smoke of such at the Pentagon. If the story were as you and the govt wish it to be, these nose witnesses would have had this component missing from their smelling tales.

It would have been acceptable to remain on the fence about 9/11 and the potential involvement of our leaders, if their handling of the aftermath was not so criminal.

Yes, criminal... Rendition. Torture. Invasion of Iraq. (Invasion of Afghanistan once the threats of the summer of 2001 are considered.) Lies of WMD. The USA PATRIOT Act that needed an Anthrax attack to push through. Department of Homeland Security. TSA. No child left behind.

The Bush Administration and the Obama Administration accomplished a lot... for the 1%. They pulled one of the biggest con's in history. Neo-con is so apropo.

Too bad that "parallel processing" of the Internet age exposed the wires, exposed the tricks, exposed the lies, exposed the man behind the curtain.

I don't know you personally, Mr. Wright, but I know your postings well enough from when you started posting here to spot your agenda. I'm glad that you are making postings here and representing the govt. It would be a shame if Mr. McKee's blog did not attract such Cass Sunsteinesque and Q-Groupie attention. But because of this, I try not to waste too many keystrokes on you, and encourage others to do the same.

John Bursill : “truth” advocates continuing to push for speculation


Interesting to see “truth” advocates continuing to push for speculation to be included in our “truth”!

My hope is that the consensus panel does not put it’s chin in the breeze for the de-bunkers to knock them out!

If we follow the scientific method on issues that are controversial we will not go wrong.

Be reasonable, self critical and cautious. If the data does not exist then the point can not be made period!

Regards John

Señor El Once : name-brand in the 9/11 Truth Movement


Dear Mr. Bursill,

You are somewhat of a name-brand in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Thank you coming to this blog. You wrote:

Interesting to see “truth” advocates continuing to push for speculation to be included in our “truth”!

Only God can own the "truth", and it doesn't need no stinking consensus to be true.

If the mainstream and consensus faction of the 9/11 Truth Movement has problems with speculation, it is of the nature that not enough plausible speculation has been explored. It has been shutdown, early and often. Others will debate on the merits of CIT. Me? Shoot! I belong to the fringe fraction of 9/11 Truth that defends September Clues and Dr. Judy Wood.

I am such a duped useful idiot, I leave the door open to be duped back that pixels of planes via video fakery weren't involved and that directed energy weapons powered by milli-nuclear devices didn't dustify the towers... Providing something more scientifically sound than "concensus" is deployed in your argument.

Nano-thermite, while involved (probably to destroy the devices that did the destruction and other odd jobs), cannot account for the massive energy sink of pulverization of content, cannot account for measured anomalous radiation levels, cannot account for 1st Reponder health ailments, cannot account for the anomalous vehicle damage outside the radius of falling debris, etc. Hell, it can't even account for the duration of the underground fires! Thus, the 9/11 Truth Movement must speculate further.

As for pixels of planes inserted into our media footage, this is but the tip of the iceberg in how the world was Hollywood manipulated. Had those pixels been modeled a bit better with deformation and deceleration crash physics, had those pixels flight paths been consistent across all 44 or so "not-quite-amateur-at-all" videos, had there not been glaring instances of leaked raw and altered footage (e.g., view of plane 2 from local news helicopter close by), maybe we could dispense with the video fakery. But that wasn't the case.

Worse, when considering the calculated speed of those pixels at 1/4 mile above sea level where the air is heavy and resistive exceeding the manufacturer's maximum speed when flown at high altitude and how these factors alone should have made a real plane difficult to control, if it didn't rip it apart, when considering the military exercises that involved the insertion and deletion of radar blips, when considering how interceptors were sent the opposite direction at half speed (e.g., couldn't have them discovering no real planes), when considering the "liberal media's" lockstepping propaganda to shutdown 9/11 Truth as crazy, loony, and insane, when considering faked air-to-ground telephone calls, magic passports, magic bandannas, and other utter bullshit that has been foisted on the world, then pieces of a much larger neo-conning puzzle come into focus. Here again, "consensus" 9/11 truth doesn't do enough speculation.

My hope is that the consensus panel does not put it’s chin in the breeze for the de-bunkers to knock them out!

Alas, if the consensus panel doesn't speculate far enough, they'll have duped useful idiots like myself knocking them out.

If we follow the scientific method on issues that are controversial we will not go wrong.

Hear, hear! Let's apply that scientific method to the utter pulverization of content! Let's apply it to the duration of under-rubble fires! Let's apply it to crash physics! Let's apply it to video fakery, which I truly believe was the least risky, least complicated option as compared to "real planes."

Be reasonable, self critical and cautious. If the data does not exist then the point can not be made period!

I agree fully, but only under normal circumstances and without meddling agencies whose agenda is to destroy and suppress such data that could then lead us to truthful conclusions.

Come on! They prevented standard operating procedures on so many levels: errant flight interception protocols, what fire investigations can look for, ... They delayed the establishment of a commission for over a year, tried to put a known criminal (Kissinger) in charge, under-funded it, steered it via Zelikow such that even the Commissioners no longer stand behind its conclusions, and covered over blatant examples of data destruction (e.g., FAA tapes, Able Danger).

So, a charge of what we cannot do and of the points that cannot be made when "the data does not exist" because it was never collected, destroyed, or never analyzed plays exactly into the hands of suppression of truth.

And for all of my crazy speculation here, by golly data does exist. The issue is that the data points fit into trend lines that various 9/11 steering committees (like 9/11 Blogger) won't touch with a 10-foot pole with or without science.

Thus, be reasonable, self critical and cautious, but also be open-minded, thoughtful, and wary of those who would steer us away from God's truth just because it didn't seem to fit into a box defined by consensus views.

Señor El Once : alias-ASS-ociating games will not be tolerated here


Dear Mr. 911Artists and his discussion partners,

Consider this notice that such alias-ASS-ociating games will not be tolerated here! It serves no purpose except as Google fodder to mess with job-hunting background checks.

The one exception is when an alias-hopping-ASS-ociate does so to juke the numbers significantly with respect to support or disagreement of a given theme under a given thread (and sometimes between threads). Should such an event present itself, the difference between equating alter-ego super heroes Batman to Spider-man is quite different from equating Batman to Bruce Wayne or Spider-man to Peter Parker.

Ben Franklin has filled books with the published writings of pen-names that he wrote under. Thus, he demonstrated the integrity of standing behind (eventually) the words we write whatever the alias. Alas, such openness at the wrong time or a time not of our choosing could have meant a high cost, possibly even his life. An early echo of that sentiment was in getting the shit kicked out of him, losing his employment, and souring family love at his older brother's newspaper and printing press after Ben confessed to being "Silence Dogood", a middle-aged widow who wrote popular letters to the editor.

Señor El Once : publicly outing on-line alter-egos


Dear Mr. Morrisseau,

You seem to have a bent on publicly outing on-line alter-egos. This has its own moral and karmic consequences. In your hunt, please well consider the different levels of outing and to morally endeavor to use the appropriate one.

From a previous posting of mine:

[T]he difference between equating alter-ego super heroes Batman to Spider-man is quite different from equating Batman to Bruce Wayne or Spider-man to Peter Parker.

You wrote:

I always sign and give contact information whenever I write anything.

Great for you and your situation that you feel so confident in your words. Good for you that you were astute enough to use a Post Office mailbox and not your physical street address, that someone can MapQuest or Google and get more than the GPS coordinates on... for the black helicopters, of course, or the Predator drone strikes. Woe to those of us without the wherewithal to pay for the luxury of a post office box and must use their home address.

In my bat-shit crazy conspiracy research, I've learned that the PTB have the ability to track your cellphone by triangularating cell tower response signals, if your built-in GPS didn't give you away. Also, they have the technology to turn on your cellphone's microphone. I therefore hope that your openness in providing your contact information doesn't paint a big target on whatever part of your anatomy that holsters your cellphone.

You wrote:

I cannot agree that there is ever a reasonable basis for allowing anonymous comments.

Did you miss my summary of a Ben Franklin story?

Ben Franklin has filled books with the published writings of pen-names that he wrote under. Thus, he demonstrated the integrity of standing behind (eventually) the words we write whatever the alias. Alas, such openness at the wrong time or a time not of our choosing could have meant a high cost, possibly even his life. An early echo of that sentiment was in getting the shit kicked out of him, losing his employment, and souring family love at his older brother’s newspaper and printing press after Ben confessed to being “Silence Dogood”, a middle-aged widow who wrote popular letters to the editor.

Did you never read this quote?

A coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage.
~ Marvin Kitman (b. 1929), author and media critic

Mr. Morrisseau, I hope that my ramblings here have made plain several "reasonable bases for allowing anonymous comments" that you could agree on, aside from there being a historical precedence.

If there is any doubt in your mind about what is morally and ethically responsible in "IDing (e.g., publicly outing) and bagging" the agents of disinformation, then there ought to be. Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

Señor El Once : Runway 15's length


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

I checked out [Runway 15's] length (5200 feet) and I checked out the length of runways used by 757s (much longer). I checked the roster of planes at DCA and found that 757s did not use runway 15. I thus found that a 757 landing on runway 15 would have (IMHO) a chance of winding up in the river, might have exhibited squealing brakes and smoking tires, and even if it didn’t, would have been very conspicuous to planespotters, pilots, airport employees, amateur aviators, and of course the Air Traffic Controllers.

Everything you write is good and well. I can certainly buy the premise that the airport authorities deemed runway 15 too short to routinely handle fully-loaded 757's safely and comfortably. It wouldn't take much extra glide time of a hesitant pilot to delay touchdown on the runway to a point leaving insufficient comfortable stopping distance such that all outcomes you mention might be likely -- squealing brakes and smoking tires and a chance of winding up in the river.

Ah yes, but 9/11 was different. The (CIT/Pilots4Truth) 757-223 plane in question already performed (if memory serves me) a 7000 foot 270 degree descending spiral to fly within 100 or so vertical feet of the Pentagon. The experienced pilot demonstrated some chops with that feat alone!

Questions persist regarding the 9/11 passengers/cargo, but the OCT seems to say the 757 had a capacity of 200 but only had 59 occupants plus hijackers. Thus, if we assume these figures, the plane was not fully loaded. Boeing tells us:

"Even with full passenger payload, the 757-200 can operate from runways as short as ... about 5,500 feet."

Combine these factors:
- A very good pilot.
- Less than 50% passenger payload.
- The plane's low altitude at the Pentagon.

It is not so far fetched that the low-flying 757 could touch down at the very end of runway 15 and use its full 5200 feet (80' short of a mile) to safely slow down and stop without squealing brakes and smoking tires.

As for your comment: [it] would have been very conspicuous to planespotters, pilots, airport employees, amateur aviators, and of course the Air Traffic Controllers (ATC).

You over-estimate the observation skills of all these (except Air Traffic Controllers), particularly if the skilled pilot with a lightly loaded plane were able to land without your speculated giveaway signs (e.g., smoking tires, smoking tires, final stop in river.)

Permit a slight detour into radar, where Wikipedia says:

Conventional radar and pulse compression radar use time domain signal processing that is effectively blind any time the antenna is aimed near weather and the earth's surface. That is because pointing the radar at the ground and into weather produces a reflection from each raindrop, leaf, wave, and pebble. Those reflections overwhelm human operators and computing systems. The only way to prevent that problem for these kinds of radar is to not point the radar at the ground. This creates a zone of weakness near and below the horizon that is used to hide from the radar.

The Pentagon 757 had it transponder off. If it was at about 100 feet at the Pentagon, it was already within that zone of weakness that would hide it from the airport's radar.

The fact that one FAA supervisor (I don't remember the airport or FAA location) destroyed 9/11 tapes and distributed their remains in different trash cans is a hint regarding how other FAA and ATC "observations" can be held in check. Thus, it is conceivable that an innocent request from above and trickled down to ATC could keep runway 15 clear of other aircraft for a narrow sliver of time for the Pentagon 757 to land without great fanfare or notice from ATC.

Let's ignore for a moment any ATC involvement in the multiple military games of the day, whereby part of the exercise was to insert/delete radar blips. The timing on the following two quotes should be a clue regarding what additional distractions might have been imposed on ATC such that they wouldn't notice or remember at the end of the day an "extra 757" landing on runway 15 just before "all hell broke loose in the control room."

Wikiepedia says:

"The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT."

USA Today says:

"Minutes after another jet smashes into the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m., the managers issue an unprecedented order to the nation's air traffic controllers: Empty the skies; Land every flight; Fast."

The point being, the ATC were assigned an unprecedented task at about the exact moment that a possible 757 was landing and slowing down on the short runway 15, a perfect "all hell breaking lose" distraction.

I love this fluff piece:

"But due to Ben Sliney, the Federal Aviation Administration's National Operations Manager on duty that fateful morning, possible harm, at least by the thinking at the time, was averted. Sliney made the gutsy — and completely unprecedented — call to ground every single commercial airplane in the country. What makes the call — which, without direct order from the President and the bureaucracy above him, was his and his alone to make — all the more gutsy is that Sept. 11th, 2001, was Ben Sliney's first day on the job as an FAA National Operations Manager."

Here are some things I find remarkable about this. Why did he start his new job on Tuesday? First of the month or a Monday (when not a holiday) are more traditional starting days.

Others can back me up on the details of the following factoid, but it was the first day on the job for one or two others in the "interception" chain of command. Included in that was some officer who was filling in for the first time for his superiors who had other engagements that came up to take them conveniently out of the loop, thereby introducing a factor of "inexperience and in over his head for his first day" scapegoat.

In conclusion, Mr. Good, I applaud your research into runway 15, but you too conveniently rule it out as part of the CIT puzzle due to its length being 500' short of Boeing's recommendations for a fully-loaded 757, when the actual plane was lightly-loaded and at the hands of a demonstrated skilled pilot.

Señor El Once : not a dodge but a fact


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

You are simply trying the same dodge that Rob Balsamo did when I raised the issue over 2 years ago at OpEd News.

Any similarities between my response and that of Mr. Balsamo from over 2 years ago at OpEd News (that I do not recall reading) would stem from both of us recognizing that a 757 could land on runway 15, despite its length being 500' shorter than recommended by Boeing for a fully loaded plane (because the Pentagon plane wasn't fully loaded, was already very low in altitude, and had a proven exceptional [auto] pilot.)

That is not a dodge but a fact. You continue with the dodge:

I did not say that it was impossible for a 757 to land there.

Thus, in a back-handed manner, you concede that it was physically possible for a lightly loaded 757 already at low altitude and at the hands of an exceptionally skilled [auto] pilot to land on runway 15.

True, you did not say it was impossible, but you did use language like "[I disqualified] runway 15 as a haven for flight 77." For what dodgy reasons?

- Runway 15's length. As proven and back-handed admitted by you, not a disqualifying factor.

- 757's did not typically use Runway 15. Agreed, but 9/11 was a day full of exceptions.

- Pilots. What would they note out of the ordinary sitting at a gate or even sitting on the tarmac waiting for take-off? How much can they really see outside their plane? What would they notice from the air waiting to land? What would they care given the hoopla already in motion that resulted in the grounding of all aircraft on the minute or within a minute of the 757 landing where it doesn't typically?

- Airport employees. [sarcasm]Yeah, right[/sarcasm]. The ones out and about in the fresh air are more concerned about the taxiing aircraft and the ones they have to load/unload, fuel, service, etc. than noting a 757 came down on an unusual runway.

- Amateur aviators. [sarcasm]Yeah, right[/sarcasm]. Where is their vantage point? Probably at a gate that can't even see (all of) the runways as they wait to board their flights. This is just you padding the list.

- Plane spotters at Gravely Point. If these were such a potent force with their picture taking, tail number recording, time recording, schedule double-checking, etc. for the hoopla that a 757 landing on an untypical runway would create, then kindly cough them up, Mr. Good, as well as all of their photographs, tail numer recording, and time notation for all of the subsequent aircraft that landed at DCA on 9/11 in an unusual manner. Surely if these plane spotters were a force of influential double-checking record-keeping, they'd have DCA schedules, they'd be monitoring radio signals, if not the news, and they'd know that what was happening was unusual, so they would have documented it for history. Prove with names and official statements that such plane spotters were on duty. Cough up the usual (and/or unusual) airport activity on Tuesday 9/11 they recorded. Verify that a 757 on runway 15 would stand-out. Otherwise, this becomes a dodgy category of observer that you completely blow out of proportion in a red herring.

- Air Traffic Controllers. Now you might be on to something. I could certainly agree that they would probably notice an aircraft landing on runway 15 without their permission. However, that with or without permission question is something to mull over. How many ATCs would be required to give permission (or to stall other aircraft)? Probably only one. Could that person be unwittingly in on the conspiracy? Maybe they were already part of the several military exercises. The story of the FAA supervisor (somewhere) taking some of their 9/11 tapes, destroying them in front of ATC subordinates in a "story clarifying (CYA) meeting," and then distributing the tape fragments across several trash cans is an indication of at least one person at the FAA with an ass to cover. However slight, however compartmentalized, it tells of involvement in the conspiracy.

You wrote:

And you think a 757 operating without landing clearance could use runway 15, crossing over the main runway and putting any landing or taking off planes at risk, and the ATCs would be so busy polishing their nails or playing video games that they wouldn’t notice? And then it has to taxi to the terminal, crossing two other runways to do so, and it has to request permission to do this or has to do it without permission, again endangering any planes taking off or landing. And again the ATCs don’t notice, none of the other pilots notice, none of the DCA grounds people notice?

Nope, that is not what I think. That is the dodge of you putting words in my mouth.

I think (and speculate) that it would plausible for a single supervisor to tell the ATC's to keep runway 15 clear (as well as any intersecting runways) for a narrow window of time for the transponderless and below-the-radar flying plane to land.

As for your assumed nail-polishing and video-game-playing ATC's? Seems to me some of them were already a bit slack-jawed to see the radar blip disappear near the Pentagon, whereby they afterward mentioned they assumed it had crashed, because they were already aware of the hijack dramas and alleged crashes in NY. Thus, in their shock, they probably weren't thinking that it was still in the air and seconds away from landing on runway 15.

Due to the discrepancies in the exact-to-the-quarter-minute timelines (that were officially amended at least three times), I honestly don't know when the grounding order came with respect to an arriving 757. Could it have been slightly before or exactly when the 757 landed? Regardless, their (alleged by you) nail-polishing and video-game-playing were immediately interrupted with the unprecedented order to land all aircraft. And that includes coordinating the taxiing and parking of aircraft that it wasn't normally expecting.

On the topic of what landed and its tail numbers, we need to rewind. Doubt enters into the equation at several points along the long, transponderless, and un-intercepted 757 flight. Did the reputed plane even take off? Did it truly fly the entire alleged path? How did the military's games and insertion/deletion of radar blips play into this? Would this have aided in swapping the reported plane with one that had different tail numbers and whatnot that would not have been suspicious when they requested taxiing and parking instructions from the control tower?

You asked regarding my speculation:

And again the ATCs don’t notice, none of the other pilots notice, none of the DCA groundspeople notice?

It isn't a question of none of the above noticing. It is a question of all of a sudden an overwhelming number of things to notice and contend with. Planes are grounded. Planes can't leave gates. Unexpected planes are brought down there. Where to park them. Where to unload them. Distract, distract, distract.

As always, Mr. Good, you overplay your hand and flag for astute readers where to search for 9/11 truth. Thank you.

Señor El Once : Prove him as such


Dear Mr. Veritatem,

[I don't speak for Mr. McKee.]

Don't call Mr. Good a liar. Prove him as such. Point out the disinformation. Avoid the name calling.

If the NSA Q-Group exists, has the mandate to infiltrate online forums, and desires to distance various presidential administrations (and insiders) from involvement in 9/11 (and other bad things), then Mr. Good's clever postings are representative of a member of their varsity team, no?

Yes, I know it can be tedious to go for another spin on Mr. Good's disinformation merry-go-round after such spinning in other venues induced you to puke your guts out while running his dubious points into the ground. If it is a complete re-hash, provide the links.

However, recognize that this is a different venue with a different audience where extracting salient points would be informative. Two other things to consider. The destination website of those supporting links could be taken down/out for any number of reasons in the future. And even if they survive and are available for inspection, they probably have their own rambling problems that only a few will wade through to reach a conclusion.

I'll repeat the injunction not to call Mr. Good any names. Instead, turn the other cheek and love him for fulfilling his God-given role as a disinformation agent with an impressive track record all over the internet. Harken, for whenever he posts, he opens the door of opportunity for someone to post a response with truth, that the latter-day readers and database archeologists will know.

In fact, in his own special way as a "semaphore for 9/11 Truth," Mr. Good's frantic "wave-off's" from certain topics (e.g., runway 15) really become "land-here's" and "research-this." We should really be very grateful. Many times in my 9/11 and global politics studies, I did not seriously consider certain avenues of research as I was lulled by the "loony, crazy, insane" labeling as valid,... until I noticed the lock-stepping frantic "wave-off" patterns and the (weak) arguments used to justify "not going there." If the NSA Q-Group (and other disinformation spreading agencies) has any true America patriots and supporters of the Constitution, sometimes they help us immensely by leaking truths in their ridiculous posturing and overplayed wave-off's. For this reason, it can be important to play the game, ride the merry-go-round again, and re-discover truth.

Señor El Once : inability to praise the talent in players from the other side


Dear Mr. Veritatem, you wrote:

el once, as Craig just said, Good has been thoroughly refuted. Do some research. Unless you are just some npt disinfobot here to stir the pot, associate your support of CIT w/ npt. now, you are here defending Brian Good and giving his wanton disinformation credence without acknowledging that it has been thoroughly refuted and didn’t have any sourced substance to begin with.

Let's see if I can bend you into shape from your warped football mentality and its inability to praise the talent in players from the other side. Play in the game of X improves more going against stronger opponents rather than weaker ones. Mr. Good is a strong debater.

Much to your chagrin, Brian Good does make interesting and clever points. It is sometimes hard to see exactly where he is leading us down the garden path or when the rose colored glasses get placed on our noses. You take the easy way out saying (paraphrased) "Mr. Good has been refuted elsewhere, thus what he writes here must be also already refuted, so we can ban him, post-haste." To this point and your "do some research" injunction: Games played last week does not make this week's game a foregone conclusion.

Why say you that I defend Mr. Good? Because I ordered you not to call him names? Silly me. More silly you. Name calling debases the caller and the environment that permits such more than it does the intended target. So if it seemed as if I was defending Mr. Good, recognize also how it was also more on your behalf and that of Mr. McKee's blog.

As for your "npt disinfobot" nit?


Spank me harder.

"NPT" equals "No Planes Theory," right? Is not one of the damning implications of CIT that "no plane" (UA77) crashed into the Pentagon? Let's ignore the staging of downed light poles and focus on the aspect that says a real plane flew over the building at ~100 feet timed with a missile launch from a construction trailer supposedly housing a generator. Thus, a major component of its success would be the ability of PYSOPS in the media to immediately spin this to be a real plane crash, whereby eye-witnesses to a plane flying and later to smoke billowing from the Pentagon would cognitively associate the two as cause-and-effect.

Why stop there? Why not get the public to believe a yarn about heroes on UA93 that allegedly dove into Shankville turf? Where's the wreckage, the bodies, the luggage, the seats, etc.? Certainly, this is NPT as well.

Two out of four planes are really NP: not even pixels on a computer.

I assume that your distain for NPT refers mostly to the towers and to the pixels of aircraft you've seen on the telly. Maybe this is where you need to do some research. I've wanted to be proven wrong on my NPT beliefs at WTC for a long time, without success. The counter arguments to NPT are weak and non-comprehensive. Like Shanksville and the Pentagon, they can't even produce a serial numbered part from the WTC to uniquely identify the plane via its maintenance records.

And the videos themselves? If real planes hit the towers, why is there so much evidence of video fakery and video anomalies? I particularly liked the miraculous zoom-in (4 times from 6 miles away) that resulted in the much debated "nose-in, nose-out" clip. What impressed me most was the reverse-play zoom-out that suddenly doesn't show an aircraft where we can easily calculate it would be. I like how the tail of the aircraft moves into the towers at the same speed it moves through thin air. I like the 4 different versions of a helicopter's footage: #1 with no plane; #2 with an orb; #3 with the background masked out to be sky and a different plane trajectory; and (late) #4 with a plane replacing the org.

If there were real planes, why the need for any video manipulation at all?

Turn this around. Under what conditions would fake planes be superior? When you control the media and have Hollywood-inspired software running of fast computers at your disposal, when you have witnesses planted and prepped, when you have authoritative govt story-tellers waiting in the wings to say what it was and what it wasn't, fake planes (or faking plane crashes) are massively superior on all levels of the operation.

Here's an example. Americans (wrongly) pride themselves on the integrity of its leaders and how they wouldn't deliberately kill their own citizens. How then do you suppose the planners of this operation got secret approval from various leaders, bodies, agencies, and institutions prior to 9/11 and then after 9/11 to keep the lid on it? The sales pitch probably went like this:

"No animals were hurt during the making of this film." No passengers were hurt during the making of this ruse. All were either witness-relocation candidates or simVictims, except the hijacker who were non-American CIA assets and lose ends necessitating patsy terminations. The delay between the faked jet impacts and the towers' decimation was meant to be sufficient for office workers to be able to escape. Again, witness-relocation candidates or simVictims helped flesh out the WTC victims' list. Any loss of life to real victims was unfortunate and collateral. {Unspoken afterthoughts: The one exception are those at the Pentagon in the Office of Naval Intelligence and searching for the lost $2.3 trillion. We want those Mo'Fo's taken out to send a loud-and-clear internal memo: Don't fuck with us! Don't question us! Don't investigate us! Don't follow the money! And here's some Anthrax to let you know "we can get you." Vote our way! War is good for business and the economy!}

You write:

The fruits of your labor show your true intentions.

I should hope so.

Señor El Once : [LONG] When I became a 9/11 Truther


“When did you come to believe that the 9/11 official story was false and that 9/11 was an inside job – and what piece or pieces of information convinced you?”

My detractors will peg me with "a track record of gullibility," because I had open-minded and tolerant tendancies developed well before 9/11 (e.g., punk rock, international news, art & foreign films, world music, Christian Science) that allowed me to objectively consider viewpoints and evidence that ran contradictory to "steamrolled" mainstream media views. I did not actively pursue alternative theories of historical events (e.g., JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC), but would hear them out when presented and was astute enough to see where they supplied a plausible missing piece of the puzzle.

The year 2001 was part of an era when I read the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) daily, listened to NPR, obtained more and more news from the internet, and didn't watch televison except in passing. The political theater and the eventual appointment of George Bush by the Supreme Court to the Presidency in 2000 had my cackles up and arrayed against the neo-cons, and rightfully suspicious of each and every one of their endeavors in the eight months of his pre-9/11 tenure, including tax cuts, no child left behind, privatizing social security, and sabor-rattling with the Chinese over the shot-down US spy plane. As real-time as reputable newspapers can get, the CSM informed me in the summer of 2001 of the coordinated assassinations via diverse covert means but similar global agenda-advancing outcomes of various tribal Taliban leaders.

Despite my engineering school attendance being in the 1980's, by Tuesday noon (MST), September 11, 2001, I retained in my noodle enough of Sir Isaac Newton's laws to understand while viewing the WTC towers' pulverization on the internet that this required a massive and strategically controlled influx of energy in order to account for the thoroughness, symmetry, and speed of their extermination. In fact, these features flagged major flaws in the extremely efficient operation: coincidence, overkill, and thoroughness that would be unnecessary for achieving the alleged goals of "outside/foreign terrorists" and would be next to impossible without inside access and extensive preparation time within the towers. My back-of-envelope calculations of the energy requirements and study of the demolition videos screamed to my educated mind at the time: micro-nukes. The aversion of newspaper and television analysis to properly frame the physics energy of 9/11 on the towers' controlled pulverization (nevermind in hindsight how they suppressed WTC-7 and other buildings for years) was another form of shock-and-awe to (science) educated minds regarding how truth would be trampled to advance a political agenda on a global scale.

In my (non-political) online playgrounds of that period when I went off-topic, the main concern I opined were against the overly patriotic (and un-Christian) sentiments that blindly and vengefully advocated ruthless bombing and invasion of Afghanistan (and then Iraq), where losses on each side would surely exceed the victims of 9/11 in NYC. Why the rush to war, when the proof of the 9/11 scapegoats was ironically both flimsy and a bit too perfect in their packaging? If indeed they were mostly Saudi hijackers, why were we going after Afghanistan? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Rhetorical questions the media would dance around to avoid exposing their ignorance of physics. My dismay and consternation was not focused on the shock of the tower pulverization, but on the beating war drums and the media hype that were driving us into war at the expense of our liberties.

Television law dramas hit home "means, motive, and opportunity" as factors that convict the guilty in the courts. If "war is a racket" according to General Smedley Butler, then motive becomes clear regarding 9/11 and its purpose as part of a larger global agenda regarding the need to "take out the Taliban and Saddam" and sold to America in the blue hue of television screens with red-white-and-blue flag lapel pins, Freedom Fries, and "America Under Attack" slogans.

When the fully-written and fleshed-out USA PATRIOT Act was knee-jerked launched at Congress in the weeks after 9/11, trend lines connected these dots with that of the summer assassinations of Taliban leaders, of our rush to war with Afghanistan despite Saudi "perpetrators", of the Washington D.C. snipers (furthering shock-and-awe in the public), of the Anthrax attacks, and of the exceptionally well-coordinated & well-executed 9/11 events themselves. Motive was clear, as was who was benefitting.

Not to pat myself on the back too vigorously for my insider conspiracy conclusions forming around November 2001, but that was about when I believed the official story was false and we were being played by a "big lie:" shortly after the "bi-partisan" and overwhelming passage of the USA PATRIOT Act by Congress without having read it and after the Afghanistan invasion. Other real-time events and some 52 presidental scandals that the Bush Administration just kept piling on did nothing to dispel those dark thoughts about ruling factions within my government. The never-changing, never-faultering, never-wavering official story became incongruent with independently exposed 9/11 details based on physics and science.

I may have been an early adopter of 9/11 insider conspiracies, but I was not an active one (until 2008). I entertained hopes that media attention to the growing mass of 9/11 truth activism would turn the tide and usher in new leadership. No, the media labels "crazy, loony, and insane" were quick, consistent, and coordinated to smear doubting Thomas's and maintain the cover-up.

Señor El Once : [SHORT] When I believed 9/11 was Inside Job


“When did you come to believe that the 9/11 official story was false and that 9/11 was an inside job – and what piece or pieces of information convinced you?”

My detractors will peg me with "a track record of gullibility," because I had open-minded and tolerant tendancies developed well before 9/11 that allowed me to objectively consider viewpoints and evidence that ran contradictory to "steamrolled" mainstream media views (e.g., punk rock, international news, art & foreign films, world music). I did not actively pursue alternative theories of historical events (e.g., JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC), but would hear them out when presented and was astute enough to see where they supplied a plausible missing piece of the puzzle.

The year 2001 was part of an era when I read the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) daily, listened to NPR, and obtained more and more news from the internet. The political theater of George Bush being appointed president by the Supreme Court in 2000 had my cackles up about the neo-cons and rightfully suspicious of each and every one of their endeavors. As real-time as reputable newspapers can get, the CSM informed me in the summer of 2001 of the coordinated assassinations via diverse covert means but similar global agenda-advancing outcomes of various tribal Taliban leaders.

Before noon (MST) on September 11, 2001, I saw the first internet versions of the towers' pulverization. From my education in engineering, I understood that this required a massive and strategically controlled influx of energy in order to account for the thoroughness, symmetry, and speed of their extermination. In fact, these features flagged major flaws in the extremely efficient operation: coincidence and overkill that would be unnecessary for achieving the alleged goals of "outside/foreign terrorists" and would be next to impossible without inside access and extensive preparation time within the towers.

The "bi-partisan" and overwhelming passing without reading of the massive, fully fleshed-out, waiting-in-the-wings, and dubiously named USA PATRIOT Act by Congress in the weeks following 9/11 -- weeks that contained D.C. snipers and Anthrax attacks to further heighten the fear to get public submission -- were what clued me by November 2001 that the 9/11 official story was false and that 9/11 was an inside job. These were underscored by the persistent "America Under Attack" and "America at War" propaganda slogans of media and by the overly patriotic (and un-Christian) sentiments that blindly and vengefully advocated ruthless bombing and invasion of Afghanistan (and then Iraq). Too many coincidental dots that formed trend lines that later (and unearthed earlier) Bush Administration's dots also aligned with.

Señor El Once : Mr. Good is a strong debater


Mr. OneSliceShort quoted me back with:

"Mr. Good is a strong debater."
Seriously señor??

Seriously, Mr. OneSliceShort. Nevermind the "90 Shilling" micro-brew I just drank.

And you probably owe Mr. Good a round of thanks for providing the opening for you to introduce your four points of his flip-flopping play and how it reflects badly on him, and even proves the labels we all would like to deploy against him. For such a response from you, I give you my praise as well, because now neither Mr. McKee nor me ("Hey, that rhymes!") will have to soil our keyboards in handling the matter.

Meanwhile, I'll be thanking the very same Mr. Good for nudging me into looking into runway 15 myself to discover... Lo and behold! The CIT plane, a lightly loaded 757, at the hands of a talented pilot on a cloudless day could easily land on runway 15!

Being a strong debater in my mind doesn't mean that the points Mr. Good defends are necessarily valid, although some indeed are. To me it means that his arguments are clever and articulate, and it is a challenge to find where the twist in his position exists that makes it flip OCT instead of 9/11 truther. And discovering the twist is like tapping a keg, a wealth of truth comes gushing out of the rabbit hole entrance that he tried to bury like a cat with its scat and a litter box.

I gotta say, for me in my last skirmish with him, how apropo that his don't land here on Runway 15 semaphore wave-off's just duped this useful idiot into landing on another bat-shit crazy theory regarding Runway 15 as the true "get out of Dodge" escape plan, timed exactly almost to the minute to when the first-day-on-the-job FAA big whig issues the unprecedented command to land all 4000+ aircraft flying over the skies of America. Brilliant! Hide that 757 in plain sight amidst all the ensuing airport confusion. (No evidence exists as to the tail numbers of the true plane that "CIT flew" over the Pentagon, but never-the-less, I'm sure 30 minutes in a DCA hangar could make it read anything.)

I thank you in advance for tackling further Mr. Good in this thread.

Oh, the wonderful opportunities he opens for defenders of truth! Mr. Good is truly a blessing to all of us 9/11 Truth Seekers, because he leaks so eloquently the weak OCT areas in his back-handed "9/11 Semaphore for Truth" sort of a way. Hugs and kisses, Mr. Good!

Señor El Once : level of cognitive dissonance set into motion on the public


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

I assert as an undeniable fact that they may be lying, they have ample reason to lie, and you have no way of knowing if they are or are not.

Turn about is fair play. I assert as an undeniable fact that SOC witnesses may be lying. Most are part of the MIC or its media branch, so they have ample reason to lie to promote the agenda.

And given the level of cognitive dissonance set into motion on the public, no one has any way of knowing who was lying or not, such was the depth of the hook planted into our cheeks to reel us into the "America Under Attack" ruse.

There is much reasonable doubt about the correctness of the NOC witnesses. Credible witnesses say the plane hit the light poles, we have the broken light poles themselves, we have the ASCE report, we have CIT’s claim that a NOC aircraft can not hit the building–and not one credible witness places the plane east of the Pentagon.

Cognitive cause-and-effect. Broken light poles are on the ground. Maybe you should look into the amount of effort required to stage them; I don't see it as a showstopping problem. Lots of people were ear- and eye-witnesses to a low flying plane. The Pentagon explosion acts like punctuation to terminate the cognitive cause-and-effect of a flying plane with broken light poles and the damage to the building, while the telly sings the chorus: "our own planes were used against us like missiles, America at war!"

The ASCE report? Should be held up like the various NIST reports and the EPA's NYC air quality proclamations as excellent examples of politics tampering with science to manipulate the public's perceptions with fiction.

As for your lame real-name argument, I suspect your using yours like bait. You troll forums like this sowing the seeds of 9/11 truth doubt (and never adequately defending the OCT such that it could be swallowed hook, line, and sinker), while at the same time inflaming online ire against you personally.

Why? Because it would serve the OCT cause if an alleged violence-tolerant fringe of the 9/11 Truth Movement (e.g., a mind controlled stooge) would tamper with you real-time in real life. Just like PETA and other environmental groups before, just like OWS and other movements, it's the same playbook but a different playing field in how the opposition is painted in the media to the public as uncivil, unstable, unworthy, etc. to get it discredited. Not that I wish such tampering upon you, quite the contrary! I bring it up, so that others can avoid the obvious trap that is being set around you via your supposed real name.

If your real name and the words you write had any true worth, you would be doing a Ben Franklin by collecting them all and publishing them on your website or blog. Don't you stand behind your words? You have enough of them. Think of the problems you avoid in getting banned again and again, or seeing your postings removed. Not so if you own the playing field and the football.

P.S. I'll probably be off-line for most of the weekend. Others are welcome to explore Mr. Good's posting for the twists and turns in his analysis that need straightening.

Señor El Once : plausible motivation for SOC Lies


Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:

Señor, of course the SOC witnesses may be lying, but you have not provided a plausible motivation for them doing so.

How many SOC witnesses:

- Had their employment in some shape or form associated with the Military Industrial Complex [MIC]?

- Had their employment associated with the media?

- Had their testimony tampered with, because they watched the stilted media reporting of the day that proclaimed before the dust of the towers had even settled or the fires of the Pentagon extinguished (a) who was the devious master-mind responsible [Osama], (b) what caused the destruction [airplanes], and (c) what didn't [insiders using controlled demolition and a controlled media, "No PYSOPS to see here, folks, move along now!"]?

The MIC is geared for war, and what better motivation than (the ruse of) the "foreign enemy" taking it to us and slapping us across the face first, thereby eye-for-an-eye morally justify hitting them back?

The media is filled with ignorant but eager pawns desiring their five minutes of fame. This doesn't apply to just the on-screen talent. Traumatized victims on newscasts attracts rubber-neck crash-victim accident-gawkers who makes the networks money on advertizements, while the story of the traumatized victims (later) gets written, sold, and turned into a made-for-telly movie.

It is probably safe to say, that if your employment had you anywhere in the vicinity of the Pentagon or particularly at the Pentagon during the incident of 9/11, you would feel in some manner, shape, or form somewhat of traumatized victim, because the attack could have sacrificed y-o-u ! And despite any (e.g., Christian) religious education, you might just take the attack very deeply personally and therefore desire exacting, overwhelming, military revenge on ... oh, yeah... the cave-dwelling master mind and his band of Islamic fundamentalist, as explained to me on the telly. "Don't call me ignorant that I can't connect the dots with the telly's simplified trend line."

Let us not forget the internal memos that they sent around during this period, ordering the military personnel essentially not to talk to the (independent) media about their personal experiences on 9/11 and any doubts, suspicions, or anomalous evidence/observation they might have. I'm talking through my ass on that one, because I don't recall reading any leaked memos of this nature; I make the unfounded assumption. However, one could certainly perceive as an unwritten internal memo regarding which way the wind was blowing and who was in charge both the Anthrax attacks on a news media personality and two members of Congress as well as the targeted offices of the Office of Naval Intelligence who were investigating $2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted for Pentagon transactions.

Thus, several forms of duped useful idiot motivation may have been imposed on witnesses, a masterful mass mind control operation. And what success? Despite the named patsy/attackers being mostly from an allied country, we attack a poor country who had the misfortune of not agreeing with the Unicol negotiations of the previous year and of cutting poppy product. And about a year later and built on a dubious 9/11=Saddam=9/11 foundation, we attack a second poor country who had the misfortune of wanting to sell their massive oil reserves using the Euro instead of the dollar as well as other pitfalls from being a puppet of CIA and USA machinations.

Mr. Good wrote:

I stand behind my words. Not being an attention-seeker, I seek to promote my truths but have no need to promote my on-line persona. I would like to collect my work on a website, but I’ve been too busy to get to it.

Let me be the first to say that I will be an eager reader of your website. You probably do not want to disappoint loyal fans such as me by not being able to reproduce all of your wonderful prior words on your website, because you did not collect them from the various blogs and websites where you played before those very cyber-playgrounds suffered a database update or were otherwise taken off-line, off the internet, or tossed into the bit-bucket of the ethernet. From experience, I know this is within the realm of possibility. Thus, maybe you should stop "being too busy" with other things and instead make collecting and publishing your prior work a priority. What better way "to promote [your] truths" than in giving us a mechanism to see them all in one place even after the LEDs burnout on the machine hosting original source playground.

Señor El Once : computers go down


Woa! Stop the presses!

Mr. McKee, do we have your permission to go off-topic for a posting or two?

Mr. Good, you wrote:

I wouldn’t go to that site because I had two computers go down in one day when I followed Aldo’s links, and I don’t want to give CIT my IP address.

Let us remember the distinction between "owning a website" (e.g., URL) that hosts malicious code from "offering up a link" (e.g., URL) to such before we ignore the other implications against Aldo from your statement, because as but one example, even "owning a blog" like this one and being attributed to (e.g., "owned by") Mr. McKee still subjects him to code offered by WordPress and other IT service providers that are out of his hands.

Mr. Good, would you please be so kind as to elaborate? Please offer some technical details, like the exact symptoms experienced by each computer on their way down, because some agent snagged your IP address. What abilities do you think agents have and can use against you with your IP address in hand? What have you seen them do to you? How have you been cyber-messed with all the way through to you keystrokes? What protective measures do you take?

Señor El Once : a masterful example of the age-old disinformation canard


Dear Mr. Wright, you wrote:

The message from these psychologists and therapists – whose presentation in this video is in my opinion borderline unprofessional- ...

Hold on a second. Isn't that a masterful example of the age-old disinformation canard: attack the messenger and ignore the message?

So, your opinion finds the presentation from these psychologists and therapists as being borderline unprofessional, eh?

You must have some sort of justification or founding for this opinion. Please enlighten the good readers of this forum about your personal experiences with psychologists and therapists who were more professional (in their presentation and facts), in order to prove that you have a basis for comparison and know WTF you are talking about. How many hours did you sit with these more professional psychologists and therapists? Was there something troubling you or your mind that induced you to rack up such hours of observation with these psychologists and therapists doing their profession?

Could it be your grasp of reality?

Or maybe... dare I say it... maybe they were doing mind-control on you in those many, many professional observation sessions -- they observing you rather than you observing them --, so that you could remain mentally and spiritually unaffected and ignorant of any truth leaked out in this forum.

Mr. Wright, you seem to have the same affliction as Mr. Good and Agent Albury Smith with regards to standing behind your words with a tad bit more than obscure postings to other people's blogs. Therein lies the key, Mr. Wright. If you would step up to the plate and collect all of your wonderful words and arguments into one place -- your own blog -- where you have home court advantage, then I'd likely become a devoted fan and reader! Because this hurdle seems to be a big one, "many hands make light work." Join forces with Mr. Good and Agent Albury Smith.

Here's a great title for the blog: "The Three Stooges of the Ah-pock-oh-lips".

Of course, you shouldn't name a blog based on one suggestion. It requires brainstorming, surveys, and market research. So let's put it out to Mr. McKee's readers what you blog should be titled.

Readers? A little help here, please.

Señor El Once : Indeed it was, Mr. Wright. My apologies.


Dear Mr. Wright, you wrote:

Hold on a second. Isn’t that a masterful example of the age-old disinformation canard: attack the messenger and ignore the message?

Indeed it was, Mr. Wright. My apologies.

I was being mind-controlled and just couldn't help myself in making the bat-shit crazy supposition regarding how you would have obtained the experience to be able to judge whether or not the "the presentation from these psychologists and therapists were borderline unprofessional."

Señor El Once : debunked on that point


Mr. RuffAdam wrote:

Step three: If the blogger fails to counter the challenges and fails to support his/her assertions/statements after a reasonable time then he/she is considered to have been debunked on that point.
Step four: If a blogger continues to repeat debunked material he/she is then considered a suspected troll and is given a warning to withdraw his/her debunked statements and stop repeating them.

I take issue with the highlighted words above.

If the blogger fails to counter specific points in the challenge, the points remain open but leaning away from the blogger. If the blogger fails to counter the challenge but is otherwise active in the thread or blog, the merits of the challenge need to be weighed before any victory is claimed. This is important to prevent wild-researching-goose-chases and busy work. Nobody wants to see (one example): "You didn't rise to my challenge about UFOs in your soap on a rope doing mind-control in the shower, so victory is mine! Bwahahaha!"

If specific points and the challenge in general have merit, victory will be determined on the merits of each side.

It is dangerous to say debunked on that point and debunked material too early.

My concerns stem from my championing of bat-shit crazy theories like no planes and DEW. I believe I can rationally, reasonably, and with science support these views, but there are times [like the remainder of this week] when I won't be online and there are other times when a challenge of an ad hominem type nature [whether or not other valid points are made] when such is best ignored.

No comments: