Ralph Showman : the new skipper of the Milky Way Express
Craig, Judy Wood is not a serious person, unless you think the total dilation of one’s pupils is a feather in one’s cap. If you were paying attention the past 5 years you might have noticed that she’s the new skipper of the Milky Way Express to Nowhere with the infamous “no planes” crowd, who have done more to thwart the truth movement than any other cabal. If they aren’t Cointel-pro then they’re turning the FBI green with envy with their charade.
Anyone lined up with the dingbats who insist against all evidence that jets didn’t hit the Twin Towers deserves the ridicule and scorn that Dr.Judy receives. Judy Wood is way, way out there and not to be engaged except to drop kick her through the goal posts from the 50-yard line.
Señor El Once : 9/11 pushed the envelope in terms of duping a nation
Dear Mr. Showman,
In your statements about "no-planes" and Dr. Judy Wood, I encourage you to live up to your name, and "show me, man." Otherwise, you're just spouting ad hominems. Humorous, but ad hominems, nonetheless. Please refrain from such going forward, or whatever point you have to make will suffer.
Do you have Dr. Wood's textbook?
If the answer to the above is negative, you won't fair very well going forward.
If the answer to the above is afirmative, the follow-up questions are: have you read it and did you understand it?
Let the above form the starting point for debate on this subject. Let's "get ourselves on the same page," as it were.
I do not hold up her textbook as the gospel on 9/11, and my views now deviate in certain areas. Still, her book contains many truths and much evidence that need to be addressed by whatever conspiracy-theory-du-jour is promoted. Before I was even 1/2 finished, I was recommending the book, and this with the knowledge that the 2nd half could be total disinformation. My reasoning was that if it turned out to be such, we'd still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our grandkids how our generation was played. Turns out, however, that nothing in her book stands out as disinformation to me. I encourage you to find such disinformation if you can (and set me straight), but just as importantly to recognize the nuggets of truth that the others won't address. Her book contains the best correlation of the pictures of damaged buildings to marked mapped positions, so that us non-NY-ers can understand the aftermath.
Final point on this subject before you go back to your trenches for more research. Neither convential demolition explosives nor nano-thermite explosives can explain the pulverization of the towers (a massive energy sink), the duration of underground fires (many weeks), the anomalous radiation measurements, first responder ailments, the damage to vehicles on various streets... Until the energy equations of the destruction are balanced (like with nuclear-powered DEW - my deviation from other theories), those theories not addressing the energy sink become examples of "govt infiltration and leading of the opposition."
As for no-planes, you wrote:
[those] who insist against all evidence that jets didn’t hit the Twin Towers...
All evidence is the issue. I encourage you to do some research into what exactly all of that evidence is. The airplane parts on the street? Couldn't even be verified by serial number or otherwise to match the reported plane. Other plane parts? How convenient that the spire-based-DEW within the towers pulverized content, so precious little of anything -- airplane parts, landing gear, office furniture, humans -- could be uniquely identified and picked from the ground zero pile.
Pixels on the telly? I'll wager right now that this makes up 90% of your belief that real planes hit the towers. If this is your evidence, kindly give it due scrutiny. If memory serves me, there are about 44 video clips of the 2nd plane. Yet they aren't without errors. They are inconsistent one video to another with regards to flight path, thereby proving that video manipulation happened. Many of the clips are inconsistent within themselves. For example, the pixels of the planes flew at 1/2 mile above sea level where the air is heavy and resistive at speeds in excess of what real aircraft were rated for at high altitude; by rights, real planes flying would have been hard to control, if the resistive sea-level air didn't tear them apart. Physics defying, those plane pixels were.
For another example, take the miraculous four stage zoom-in from a helicopter several miles away that just so happens to be zoomed in and focused on WTC-2 when the pixels of the 2nd plane enter the frame. This lead to the nose-in/nose-out anomaly (that they tried to cover for with a fade-to-black as well as with totally obnoxious banners consuming the bottom third of the screen -- why haven't they released raw footage without the banners?). This shot also lead to the reverse-play/zoom-out that doesn't show the plane in the zoom-out shots where we can easily calculate it to be.
Crash physics is a major flaw. Since when does aircraft-light & thin aluminum slice building steel like butter to leave a cartoon outline out-to-the-wingtips of an airplane on the building, like a Road-Runner cartoon? Crash physics would have been too hard to model, particularly in all of the desire "amateur" footage (that wasn't). So again, we see how these plane pixels were physics defying.
The media played us on 9/11, and they continued to milk it with every suppression of speakers from the 9/11 Truth Movement, with every talk-show ambush of such alternative theories, and with every "kooky, loony, crazy" label.
Here is a great video from Conan O'Brien showing you how the media gets lock-step into its views. The interesting part starts about 1:23 when Conan introduces how "News Stations around the country are putting their own unique spin on it."
Now backup. From the day of 9/11 before the dust had even settled, the media was telling us who did it (Osama bin Laden) and how (jet impacts, jet fuel fires, melted steel, weakened structure, total building failure and collapse). They repeated this endlessly. The movie "Pearl Harbor" released in May 2001 taught us how we were supposed to react as heroes when our nation was attacked, so the logos of the news sources constantly paraded America at War, America under Attack, The War on Terror, etc.
Yep, 9/11 pushed the envelope in terms of duping a nation. No-planes remains on the table, as does Dr. Wood's excellent textbook.
hybridrogue1 : sift the BS from the honest effort
I wanted to comment on Judy Wood because I think it is important to sift the BS from the honest effort.
I have discussed this with quite a few supporters of her theories, and none of them seem all that smart. As far as needing to buy her book in order to assess the core issues, this is not so.
I would point out that merely looking closely at the photo at the top of this page is enough to debunk Wood. Do you see the amount of partial box columns and other steel parts in this pic?
Some 90 percent of the steel and other heavy metal that the towers were constructed of were blasted beyond the footprints of each tower. Photographic evidence shows this {as above} as well as the FEMA Debris Field Map.
Obviously the this huge amount of steel was not “dustified”. Wood’s theories have been debunked in several highly reasonable scientific papers.
Obviously this is not the page to go into a long debate on this issue. But I think it important to identify the charlatans of the 9/11 issue, as it is the only path to the truths of this issue.
ww
Señor El Once : dustification of content, on the cover of a book for you to judge
Dear Mr. Hybridrogue,
Judging a book by its cover, I see. I love how your book review comes from the lofty position of not owning it, not borrowing it, not stealing it, and otherwise not having it to read. Bravo!
Also, you seem to accept the framing from others with regards to "dustification of steel" and misapply that to the box columns.
The word directed in the DEW acronym should be contemplated more thoroughly. If your energy beam (from one of potentially many DEW devices) is focused into a narrow cone [up and then down], not only could you aim it away from the exterior box columns, but you could also miss the very spires that supported the DEW device(s) during much of the demolition until other devices lower in the structure took over. You would leave the exterior box columns in tact for milli-seconds longer so that they can mask and contain the mischief happening within the tower space, before nano-thermite blows the bolts connecting them together and it all came tumbling down.
The first issue of steel dustification is that the trusses -- which ran from the box columns to the core and supported each floor -- are woefully under-represented in the debris pile, as are desks, cubes, computers, toilets, airplane parts, etc. If there was steel dustification, it happened to internal content and not the exterior box columns.
A second issue of steel dustification is that the falling debris supposedly acted not only as a pile driver on the towers, but also as the leveling agent of both WTC-3 and just the main edifice of WTC-4 (while miraculously sparing WTC-4's North Wing despite being within the same radius of falling crap.) The roof of the WTC-4 North Wing provides an indication of the amount of material that fell... and it was insufficient to account for what was observed.
In truth, I don't want to go into "dustification of steel", because I believe this to be another purposeful misframing of the concepts, just like "space beams" are a misframing of DEW. DEW can be space-based or spire-based. The massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore holes in WTC-5, and WTC-4 main edifice being leveled at line with its North Wing all could still be candidates for space-based DEW, were WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6 to come under any serious scrutiny.
Instead, I prefer to dwell on the dustification of content, like concrete, drywall, office & bathroom furnishings, humans, etc. You see, conventional explosives (and super-dooper nano-thermitic offshoots) rely on sudden and massive changes in air pressure from the explosion to turn its structural victims into smaller pieces. Such air pressure changes get transmitted through the structure and can be picked up by seismic readings. Not on 9/11. Moreover, turning structural victims into smaller pieces is one level of logistics, while the logistics changes by several orders of magnitude to turn them into dust without blowing chunks at great speeds miles from the detonation point. Don't get me wrong, chunks were blown laterally, but not to the expected extent that air pressure changes to achieve dustification would suggest.
Have you read about "Active Denial Systems"? One such system beams energy at a specific frequency at its human/animal targets. Due to the frequency of the beam, it doesn't penetrate very far below the skin, but far enough to give the target the impression their skin is being burned.
Tweak the frequency. Amp up the power. You can get yourself a powerful "microwave" emitter that can turn residual water trapped in content into steam. Its instant rapidly expanding volume "dustifies" the target. Trapped water molecules (or other molecules behaving similarly) is common for concrete, drywall, porcelin, wood, plastic, humans...
You wrote:
Wood’s theories have been debunked in several highly reasonable scientific papers.
I call your bluff. Prove it. Provide the links.
The most I've seen are off-topic paragraph dismissals within papers that have other issues. The Legge-Chandler paper trying to debunk CIT flyover comes to mind.
David Chandler is a high school physics teacher to whom I personally sent a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook (with his permission) so that he could give it a fair and balanced book review: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Because he was acting as gate-keeper for Jon Cole who did all those great thermite experiments, I also told Mr. Chandler that as I was paying this book forward for him, so should Mr. Chandler pay-it-forward for Mr. Cole [and/or others in the movement] so that it could be assessed in a serious and scientific manner for the good, the bad, and the ugly. The extent of his book review:
OK. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It all ranges from bad to ugly. It was interesting to actually see and try to lift the book. It’s a HEAVY book. Someone put a lot of money into publishing this full color extravaganza thing. I wonder who. I started reading it, found it totally disgusting, and decided I had better things to do with my time.
I'm not saying that her textbook is perfect or that everything she writes is applicable to 9/11, but Mr. Chandler didn't write one specific thing to support his "totally disgusting" conclusion. He didn't even finish it.
Because of the persistent and consistent smearing of Dr. Wood spanning years, the 9/11 Truth Movement has a preconceived notion of what her textbook contains and are thus hesitant to fork out $44 for something that they've prejudged to be disinformation. I thought this too, but was astute enough to realize that all disinformation is built upon a solid foundation of truth. It cannot and should not be thrown out until those nuggets of truth have been mined, refined, and incorporated into the conspiracy-theory-du-jour.
Two of your sentences re-arranged, Mr. Hybridrogue1:
As far as needing to buy her book in order to assess the core issues, this is not so. I think it is important to sift the BS from the honest effort.
Your status of not having Dr. Wood's textbook certainly sifts the BS from the honest effort. Thank you.
Maxwell C. Bridges : a fun game to play to get an actual the good, the bad, and the ugly book review
Regarding Truth & Shadows.
The energy requirements of pulverization combined with the duration of under-rubble fires, radiation readings, 1st responder ailments, anomalous vehicle damage outside the radius of falling debris, etc. had me convinced for a few years that several milli-nukes per tower were the chief mechanisms of demolition. I stood on Dr. Wood's shoulders via re-purposing of images that she collected on her website that I thought depicted examples of electrical-magnetic pulse (EMP) damage. I acquired her textbook with the intent of mining it for nuggets of truth to bolster my beliefs-of-the-day concerning milli-nukes.
Lo and behold, her textbook convinced me that DEW is a more likely culprit for the towers. (Space-based DEW ought to still be on the table for WTC-4, 5, and 6 and individually vetted for applicability; I have no horse in that race; I'm just trying to keep people's minds open to alternatives. However, these are buildings that are ignored, and that is most telling almost as much as WTC-7 is.)
Aided by the fact that Dr. Wood doesn't draw many conclusions and cleverly rests on just presenting evidence and concepts that may or may not be connected, my views deviate somewhat from the direction she was leading us.
For example, the concept of free energy from the atmosphere and hurricanes I do not discount. But I'd have to see more proof-of-concept and concept-in-action before I'd definitively connect free energy from Hurricane Erin to the DEW devices attached to (what become) spires in the towers. The nugget of truth I mined from Dr. Wood was that the energy source did not have to coincide in location with the destructive mechanism. Combinations of new cables run down elevator shafts, the buildings' existing wiring, or even the buildings steel infrastructure itself (like as a return electron path) can help separate components. The hot-spots in the rubble pile to me, indicate unspent but fizzling remnants of the energy source (e.g., nuclear material), as do the anomalous radiation readings.
Dr. Steven Jones, more so than anyone inside or outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is the individual and nuclear physicist who steered the world away from thinking nukes or cold-fusion on 9/11. He used the reasoning: "Radiation measurements didn't match X, Y, or Z levels normally associated with nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C, thus all forms of nuclear weapons can be eliminated." Obviously a slight of hand trick, because he takes off the table radiation levels and any further speculation into their source, like a nuclear or cold-fusion generator. Also, Dr. Ward (who champions nukes in a disinformation sort of a way) may have offered a nugget of truth in his efforts, by taking Dr. Jones to task for redefining-on-the-fly the definition of "trace levels" so that again radiation measurements could be dismissed by supposedly being "below trace levels."
Dr. Wood's book has few mistakes in it; nothing glaring. One of note are the images of a police car with trunk open under a bridge with anomalous burn patterns. Turns out the trunk of that police car has its number on it. I recently discovered pictures of the same numbered car with trunk open in other locations, indicating that it was indeed towed to the bridge. This does not discount that its burn patterns on the metal may have been induced by leaking-through-the-tower's-
The Hutchinson Effect? I could go either way on this: valid or disinformation. Part of me sees it as a very clever ploy to purposely give Dr. Wood a "get out of assassination free card" for reasons of insanity. If you kill the court jester or the nutty loon, you give them more influence in death as a martyr to the cause. The Hutchinson Effect I would like to see validated (and I believe it probably will be.) Whether or not it was employed on 9/11 is a separate issue.
Hurricane Erin? Its suppression on 9/11 in the media? I'm sure you've looked into HAARP. HAARP was probably steering Hurricane Erin. If things would have gone horribly wrong, they might have suppressed media coverage and called in Erin to help destroy and obfuscate the evidence. A connection I'm making is that FEMA was setting up a command center for their exercises on some pier the day before 9/11. They knew a hurricane was coming and could potentially hit NY (if left alone). The questions Dr. Griffin asked were why they were so omniscient to set up the day before 9/11 and the coincidences of their training exercise with the real-world events? The question I ask is why they set up on a damn pier if their tent base would be wiped out by the hurricane being tracking? If they didn't know definitively that the hurricane wouldn't hit unless it was called by HAARP, I doubt they would have chosen the pier.
I believe that the shoulders of Dr. Wood's textbook are worthy of being stood upon to bring greater understanding of the events. She was clever enough not to put in many definitive conclusions, but allows readers to extrapolate her presented evidence into other things, like what I do.
Mr. McKee told you that I was the one who gave him his copy of her book. (Given to him after Phil Jayhan rejected it.) I've also given it -- or tried to give it -- to several other people who are influential in the 9/11 truth movement. [Warning: Rabbit Hole links.]
- Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll Forums outright rejected my offer and banned me from his forums for calling him "Mr. Jayhan" (I kid you not.) I now consider his hollow towers premise hollow. Still, other nuggets of truth might be hiding out there, like simVictims.
- John Wright of 9/11 Blogger and I were having a discussion and then protracted email exchange to get him and his colleagues an awareness of the energy requirements of the destruction and why the logistics of conventional and nano-thermic explosives suddenly becomes an overwhelming risk. I sent him a book in May (2011) and some pings since then, but no book reports.
- David Chandler received a book also in May (2011). He hasn't risen to the challenge of giving the book a fair review, and brushes it off. Mr. Chandler was serving as a gate-keeper to Jonathon Cole. A condition given to Mr. Chandler was that he would loan his copy of Dr. Wood's textbook or pay-forward a copy to Mr. Cole.
- I couldn't get through to Richard Gage or Jonathon Cole to discuss energy requirements, although I have exchanges with those manning the 9/11 A&E discussion.
We need to get people on the same page in at least having the book. Anybody who runs down Dr. Wood's textbook without having it or having read it exposes an agenda or tainted ignorance. I expect disagreements to arise in the interpretation of the textbook. The issue is that the smear against Dr. Wood has been so constant and persistent from the early days, most people in the truth movement are tainted and would not be inspired to plunk down $44 of their own money for something they prejudge as disinformation. Thus, this pay-it-forward technique is meant to get them over that mental-wallet hurdle and onto the same page from which rational discussion can commence.
Going forward, you might try the pay-it-forward technique I've employed. You give it to influential people within the movement under the condition that they give it a fair review: the good, the bad, and the ugly. And if it is mostly good, to obligate them to pay-it-forward to someone else.
It is a fun game to play. I have yet to get an actual the good, the bad, and the ugly book review. Their silence is telling.
Señor El Once : No real Americans will be hurt on purpose in this film production
Dear Mr. McKee,
My recollection of details in Operation Northwoods is fuzzy. But I seem to recall the premise of an airplane full of supposedly college students on their way to some chartered South American adventure when the Cubans shot them down. Different options were presented in how this could be handled. Included in this was the option that the college students were fake, never real, composite. An unmanned and passenger-empty aircraft would be shot down.
If you think about it and low-risk options, simVictims is clearly the way to go, and they knew this in the early 1960's. You can control their back-story to make it all the more emotional. Maybe they were all from the same university to give the tragedy some impact. You hire actors on a long-term contract to portray members of a select number of families. You get two points if those actors can serve double-duty in advancing some agenda in beating war drums or promoting TSA security measures. "My loved one might not have been murdered by Muslim Terrorists on 9/11, if our airports would have had radiation-poisoning scanners in place to view our private parts and detect those nasty box-cutters before they were smuggled onto the plane and used against... [*sniff* *wipe tear*] my precious Pooky. [*sob*]"
The 9/11 simVictims is a topic that hasn't been addressed very much here. I already have enough to handle riding my two trick ponies: DEW and video fakery. However, simVictims is something I've kept an eye on and has some merit.
Think about it. How soon did those supposedly impromptu memorial walls appear in NY? And how stupid were they? I mean, the WTC has some appearance of being leveled by nuclear explosions to the extent the 1st responders called it "Ground Zero", and here we have families posting pictures of their loved ones as if they were a lost pet, "Missing since 9/11, have you seen this person?" Worse, many of the missing-persons flyers had issues, like: couldn't the family have found a decent photo of their loved one? I forget the "news" organization who decided to make a project out of it by photographing those flyers into a larger web collection. Couldn't they have been more responsible and contacted the families for the original photo or different photos?
Why do so many images look like they've been poorly photoshopped? Why do the backstories on some of the individual victims get so weak? Why were not of the families of "(sim)Victims" from the planes never part of the 9/11 Families? Why are there such discrepencies in the social security death index and in families who collected settlement money?
Worst of all, when these web memorials and collections are explored further, weird things are discovered. I particularly like the anomalies in the data encoded in some of the images. They indicate that some of these were established prior to 9/11, as in the obituary and memorial efforts were being photoshopped and prepared before these alleged people had a deathly serious real need for one.
Much of this is covered on www.SeptemberClues.info.
Let's Roll Forums also has interesting threads relating to simVictims. This might be a nugget of truth to mine from them; it might not. (Disclaimer: My opinion of Let's Roll Forums isn't very high after they banned me for my "Mr. [so-and-so]" honorifics; I kid you not. The actual context was that the tag-teaming regulars were losing in a major way in getting a thread on Dr. Judy Wood's textbook shutdown with the usual "kooky, loony, crazy" references from the lofty position of not having or reading said textbook. My offer of paying for such a book to help them overcome such a hurdle was rejected. My reading of Dr. Wood was also coming dangerously close to proving hollow the major LTF promoted premise of hollow towers.)
When you start exploring this simVictim rabbit hole, you'll discover lots of anomalous things in the alleged victim pool.
Think about it further. It would be much easier to get *wink* *wink* unstated approval from leaders and actors for a Hollywood-scripted ploy to motivate the American public into flag-waving and volunteering to exercise emperial might in snagging Middle East riches and resources (as outlined by the PNAC agenda) if the proposal were presented with the claims:
"No real Americans will be hurt on purpose in this film production, although some minor collateral damage can be expected by real victims in the wrong place at the wrong time as buttons are pushed as an unknowable unknown that we can't predict. However, those real victims' families will be handsomely compensated monetarily, while the dearly departed loved one is propped up with the simVictims as... [*purse lips to suppress frown*]... a brave hero [*take a finger to wipe tear from eye*], a fighter-to-the-end, who would want America to extract the full force of its military might to render American-kick-ass justice against those evil evil-doers, for whom no amount of rendition or torture is too much!!!"
Señor El Once : Chandler Straw-Man
Dear Mr. hybridrogue1,
I'll answer your 8:08 pm and 9:42 pm postings from January 26, 2012 at the same time. You wrote:
I don’t recall mentioning Mr. Chandler in my remarks here.
I get this strawman bit every time I encounter a Judy Wood advocate.
You lost me there. I don't know why other Dr. Wood advocates bring up Mr. Chandler "every time" (or at all, except that he is the Mr. High-School Physics fallback guy.)
BUT I do know why I brought up Mr. Chandler. And it isn't a strawman.
I highly respect Mr. Chandler's videos that apply high school physics to prove the OCT wrong. Due to his prominence in the movement and his interest in physics, I approached Mr. Chandler through cyberspace to get him to expand his analysis and contemplate the energy requirements of content pulverization, and how milli-nukes or other mechanisms might more accurately explain it. He essentially refused, saying it was outside his area of expertise. In our protracted exchanges and after I jumped from milli-nukes to DEW, I was given the honor of purchasing a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook and having it sent to Mr. Chandler as a gift, with some minor conditions attached (that he rejected.) The minor conditions amounted to a good, bad, and ugly book review on Dr. Wood's work and a promise that if the book is found worthy, he would either loan his copy to or purchase a new one for, say, Mr. Cole; if the book is not found worthy, then he should probably give it to someone who would appreciate it.
I tried to get to Mr. Cole directly, but Mr. Chandler was his gate-keeper, writing:
Jon Cole and I concur that we consider Judy Wood to be a distraction, a disruption, and one who is promoting theories that are unsupported by evidence and transparently false. We have no interest in discussing her work further.
When I pursued this further with my request to hear from Jon Cole himself, Mr. Chandler wrote:
Jon's response was, "Don't even waste time responding." I did anyway. I gave you links that adequately contain our shared response.
I shredded those links, mostly because they apply to old material that has been floating around the internet for years and did not apply specifically to Dr. Wood's new textbook. This, by the way, is the same shredding I give the Dr. Jenkin's link you provided. Maybe you should look up what he does for a living, who he works for, the research he does. Surprise, surprise! He appears to be involved with the very research he wants to disabuse Dr. Wood's of.
You wrote:
First of all let us address the partially melted cars that were some how hit even though miles away according to Wood. A close examination of this claim is proven to be totally false.
I agree partly. I, too, recently discovered pictures of the police car (burned in anomalous places, trunk open, car number on trunk) from another location other than under the bridge. In more than one place, Dr. Wood inferred that the leaked EM-(or whatever energy) fields were powerful enough to affect vehicles at the bridge and pointed out this police car as an example, as well as others at the bridge. I discovered proof that this police car wasn't at the bridge when it was damaged; it was towed to the bridge. (I believe Dr. Wood mentions the possibility of the cars being towed there, but not everywhere she used the picture thereby leaving a false impression.)
It remains on the table that this police car was damaged in an anomalous way (that nano-thermite still can't explain). It actually makes me happy to learn that it was closer to the towers when it was damaged. It scales down the energy of the emitted field and that it didn't reach the bridge, while also driving home line of sight (like an EMP) remains valid.
It is obvious even to the casual viewer that those cars lined up on Woodrow Wilson Drive were towed there and did NOT receive the damages at that spot. Furthermore there are published accounts of the towing of the vehicles there.
Agreed.
I ... want to point out that when one finds one situation misrepresented, it is reasonable to assume that the other issues that person addresses are of equal merit – having none. This is standard jurisprudence.
Bullshit. Your assumption is not reasonable. One situation does not represent the whole. Mistakes happen.
What it really does is cause a reasonable person to want to validate each topic on a case-by-case basis, plotting data points, and building a trend line. Even when the overwhelming trend line might point in a certain direction -- as disinformation tends to do --, plenty of nuggets of truth are scattered throughout that need to be mined, refined, and cherished.
I wrote:
The first issue of steel dustification is that the trusses — which ran from the box columns to the core and supported each floor — are woefully under-represented in the debris pile, as are desks, cubes, computers, toilets, airplane parts, etc. If there was steel dustification, it happened to internal content and not the exterior box columns.
You wrote:
Are you even vaguely familiar with the architecture of the WTC Towers? The internal core is the ONLY area of the towers construction using ‘box columns’, as these structures were of what is called a “tube” design, the outer structures were of interlocking steel facial members that were in turn faced as well with outer aluminum. In other words there were no ‘box columns’ making up the outer structure.
Ah, we have a slight misunderstanding. The "wheat-chex" structure of the outer walls was composed of "box columns" (also "tube" design) assembled together into groups of three before being hoisted into position and connected with the other assembled "wheat-chex" items. Obviously, the "box columns" I was referring to were smaller than the ones you were referring to in the core.
As for the amount of steel found inside the surrounding buildings, this is again misrepresented by Dr. Wood, using only select photographs to make her case. If one looks into this issue closer one finds that there were great amounts of steel from the towers filling the cavities of these other buildings.
I suspect that you don't have Dr. Wood's textbook, because if you did, you'd see that she has no over-riding "case that she tries to make." Moreover, whereas indeed her photographs are select, they are also very comprehensive with the handy feature -- so handy that it makes the price of the book worth it alone -- of correlating pictures of damage via tables to map locations so that those select pictures provide a pretty comprehensive, understandable, and connected view of the destruction.
I have looked closer, and I conclude that while indeed "great amounts of steel from the towers [were found in] the cavities of these other buildings," the amounts were insufficient to account for the observed damage. The main edifice of WTC-4 is a prime example. It got leveled, but its North Wing did not although both were within the same radius of falling debris. Both the roof of the North Wing and the leveled main edifice show remnants of "wheat-chex" structures from the towers outer walls, but in insufficient quantities. The giant crater in WTC-6 is another great example.
I have read some portions of the NIST Reports, but not the whole thing. Have you?
By the sounds of it, I've probably read more than you.
Would you turn your argument around and look in the mirror before debunking the NIST Reports?
Huh? I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the above.
I took a lot of my information from scientists who could assess NIST’s claims better than I. But I DO have the PDFs of the NIST papers, and have checked where these scientists such as Jones, have pointed out what is therein.
Me, too.
Turns out, I have lots of issues with Dr. Jones. I mean, I like the man; he seems pretty nice; even in his "thus far and no further" line drawing, he has done great services to the 9/11 Movement. But he has also steered it away from where it should be looking.
Dr. Steven Jones, more so than anyone inside or outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is the individual and nuclear physicist who steered the world away from thinking nukes or cold-fusion on 9/11. He used the reasoning: "Radiation measurements didn't match X, Y, or Z levels normally associated with nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C, thus all forms of nuclear weapons can be eliminated." Obviously a slight of hand trick, because he takes off the table radiation levels and any further speculation into their source, like a nuclear or cold-fusion generator. Also, Dr. Ward (who champions nukes in a disinformation sort of a way) may have offered a nugget of truth in his efforts, by taking Dr. Jones to task for redefining-on-the-fly the definition of "trace levels" so that again radiation measurements could be dismissed by supposedly being "below trace levels."
Great that Dr. Jones found super duper nano-thermite in the dust. The issue for me is that he let the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 extrapolate this into explaining things it cannot (like duration of under-ruble fires, radiation readings.). He should have corrected the record and nipped it in the bud from the beginning. All it would have taken was a little math to calculate not just the quantities of super duper nano-thermite required to dismantle the towers, but also the additional, massively overkill amounts required to account for pulverization AND the duration of under-rubble fires. No such math paper was ever produced by capable Mr. Jones to correct the record, because it would have left a gaping hole in need of an explaining destructive mechanism.
At this point, let me throw your words (repeated from above) back out:
I ... want to point out that when one finds one situation misrepresented, it is reasonable to assume that the other issues that person addresses are of equal merit – having none. This is standard jurisprudence.
Shall we hold Dr. Jones up to the same standard you propose? Please have at it, Mr. Hybridrogue1.
Who's to say what sort of Faustian deal Dr. Jones was forced to accept? He and his family are alive. He is famous and respected, because super duper nano-thermite was indeed involved: the PTB had to give him something to fill the vacuum!
My problem is less with Wood’s theories – she is welcome to them regardless of how misguided I may determine them to be. What irks me is the attacks on the other scientists and engineers by here defenders.
Ooops! Seems like I did that above. Well before you get your panties all in a wad about that, how about seeing if my criticism of Dr. Jones has merit.
In particular I would site Andrew Johnson, who has made repeated spurious charges against both Jones, Griffin and Architects. He made some very serious charges recently concerning the circumstances of the interview at the Press Club by Professor Jenkins, calling it a “hit and run” piece”.
I happen to agree with many of his charges. If it wasn't a "hit and run piece," what was it? Where is Dr. Jenkins today? What is he doing? (What research is he involved in? Did he have a vested interested in his actions?)
[Mr. Johnson] provides a story with absolutely nothing to verify it – we are simply left to take his word for it.
LOL! Mr. Hybridrogue1, you are trying too hard! Mr. Johnson did indeed provide plenty of information and more importantly context to verify it, including Dr. Judy Wood's take on the interview. What sort of axe are you grinding here?
If anyone has ever heard or read the transcript of this interview, there is very good reason that Wood supporters would want to characterize it as some sort of hit piece, as her answers and assertions are so jejune as to leave ones jaw on the floor.
Your admission that you have to take the word of Dr. Jones and others to understand NIST and other things suggests why you created the opinion you've build up.
I saw, heard, and read the interview. Dr. Jenkins is young, photogenic, and articulate. Dr. Wood is middle-aged, maybe even rumpled, and talks scattered like many brilliant professors I've known, because their mouth can't keep up with their brains. Presentation wise, Dr. Jenkins wins. When you read the transcript, though, and then learn of the context, victory goes the other direction.
Señor El Once : Lofty Book Review
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Your dancing around with words and the skew you put on them are notable. And all done from the lofty position of not possessing Dr. Wood's textbook so that specifics can be addressed. You rely on dated material to build your strawmen. You mince words and split-hairs in your distractions.
So at this point, I would take exception with your term “wheat-chex” structures to characterize the outer construction of the tower face. The term indicates “weaving,” which is a misrepresentation of the more “puzzle piece” attachments that these connections were. There simply were NO box columns but those of the central core of these buildings. You certainly have a way of dancing around mistakes you make in your presentations Mr. El Once. And yet still you misrepresent the structures under discussion.
Good points (although irrelevant). The side walls aren't interwoven. They are somewhat cross-hatched, with three hollow "boxy" columns that are small with respect to the box columns within the towers core and crossed with three bands of steel.
The point you dodge is that the DEW devices could be aimed such that their arrayed beams of energetic destruction would singe the drywall and paint right off of the insides of the exterior wall assemblies (exhibited in many stills of falling chunks of exterior walls: some steamed clean and some still steaming) and also miss an important box columns in the core, the very spire that supports the DEW device for a time.
Even though I haven’t based a single thing on Chandler here, you wasted some quarter of your post thumping him – which has zero relevance to the issues between you and I. So you can’t leave this strawman off of your jejune rocking horse regardless.
You call it a strawman. I call it an example.
The point I'm trying to make is that, even after we remove the excuses of money and effort required to get a physical copy of Dr. Wood's textbook into their hands, the textbook is not getting detailed "good, bad, and ugly" book reports from leaders in the 9/11 Movement, reports that would substantiate their dismissive responses often laced with "kooky, loony, crazy" undertones.
Now rather than take the rest of your essay point by point, I will simply say this: There is PROVEN physical evidence on nanothermetic materials in the dust samples from WTC. I haven’t seen nor heard of any physical evidence of nuclear radiation that would be considered forensic proof.
What you personally have neither "seen nor heard" shouldn't be used to toss out an important nugget of truth regarding evidence of nuclear radiation.
Why did nuclear physicists Dr. Jones write his paper that concludes how no nuclear weapons (of known types A, B, and C) were employed on 9/11? Wouldn't have been necessary had measurements of radiation in reports from the govt not needed explaining. Let us not forget the hot spots in the rubble that burned for many weeks. Let us not forget the 1st responder ailments. Let us not forget the HazMat procedures often exhibited with dump trucks at the site. Let us not forget the security and secrecy they surrounded ground zero with. Let us not forget the destruction of evidence that was decried even by fire investigation authorities charged with investigating 9/11.
I have heard a lot of theoreticals on many of the issues of this case – and I have heard a lot of criticism of the individuals who HAVE come up with forensic proofs.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Even the term “super-duper” is one of these lowbrow digs, rhetorical splatter gaming that tends to put a serious person off.
Yes indeed, a serious person needs to be "put off" slightly in order to shake space in their minds to understand that nano-thermite does not answer all of the evidence, in particular the energy requirements of pulverization.
I also find your insinuations that Professor Jones is getting “paid off” to hide the “truth” of nuclear or DEW, as an insult to all thinking participants of the 9/11 investigation. This type of thing is bordering on shill business Mr. Once. All in all I find your arguments tending towards disruption and divisionary tactic.
I did not write "paid off"; you did. Kind of turns your whole paragraph into a strawman.
Steering is not the same thing as hiding.
With regards to the shill business, Mr. HybridRogue1,... Ooooh, I love the way you write that, because it sends "shills" down my spin the dutiful way in which you project your very own weaknesses onto me in a shilly sort of a way! Goose bumps!
As far as Dr. Jenkins being an expert in this field, who would better than he to show the absurdities of a hack?
It doesn't take much to knock down your Dr. Jenkins strawman. Dr. Wood's textbook was published years after the interview, making that ambush interview kind of irrelevant "to all thinking participants of the 9/11 investigation" who are now charged with providing a detailed and unbiased assessment of Dr. Wood's publication.
Since it is obviously your wont to blather on endlessly about any minutia that comes to mind. I will leave you to write another essay for us here and give you the last word.
Most kind of you, Mr. HybridRogue1! I take you up on that generous offer. This last word is so satisfying.
Señor El Once : Regurgitated Satisfying Last Words
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I am feeling a bit like a cow, whereby my satisfying last words are regurgitated back up like cud for me to chew on again.
I'm not going to go into my detailed impressions of the older Jones-Wood-Reynolds spats that your links take me to. It is certainly valuable reading to the curious and provides some perspective of earlier battles. Do not let me leave the impression that such information isn't important.
You wrote:
As I expect this to be one of the arguments put forward in MR. Once’s next reply...
Unfortunately, what you presented wasn't even on my radar, so your guess of my response misses the mark.
I did love your quote:
[N]ot only does Jones not debunk cold fusion, but in fact he gave us an experiment, since repeated by others that shows great promise in the field.
And thus your research shows that cold fusion showed great promise at the time (a decade before 9/11), and in turn justifies the 9/11 Truth Movement casting a critical gaze on the evidence to determine its applicability to 9/11. Yet, when Dr. Jones was addressing radiation measurements of X, Y, and Z that he narrowly framed and concluded to not represent nuclear devices of types A, B, and C -- and thus all nuclear devices --, his framing conveniently ignored cold-fusion in his explanations as well.
The axe that I'm grinding is that the Dr. Wood textbook is newer and in many ways different from the earlier debate grounds. Thus, her textbook can't be so easily brushed aside on the basis of old videos and old debates, particularly ones that detour into a he-said, she-said of ad hominem umbrage. (For that matter, the involvement of Reynolds obscures what really was said by whom on one side.)
I understand quite well the hurdles that prevent objective readers from judging Dr. Wood's textbook for themselves, because most of the mental obstacles arise from many years of kooky, loony, nutty labeling of Dr. Wood coupled with her textbook's $44 price. [You'll just have to take my word that it is a quality textbook containing very valuable information and correlations worth its price -- even if some chapters later are pegged as disinformation.] This is why I have on several occasions put my money where my mouth was in a pay-it-forward effort to get 9/11 leaders over such mental obstacles.
[Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Dr. Wood or her textbook in any way, financial or otherwise. On the few occasions when I've given someone Dr. Wood's textbook, I secured their permission first, I paid for it out of my own pocket, and I had it shipped through Dr. Wood's web publisher. I also gave receivers the option of ordering themselves and having me repay through PayPal, so I could remain ignorant of their address and such.]
Mr. HybridRogue1, you don't try to predict the weather for tomorrow using the weather forecasts from a three year old newspaper. So, you should not present a book report on new material you neither have nor read, and whose debunking can't be found in old web pages that had no awareness of said book.
I ask respectively that you consider putting your money where your mouth is by rising to the baseline established for this Dr. Judy Wood discussion: participants have to read Dr. Judy Wood's textbook.
Word of caution. She offers few conclusions, few trend lines. She provides data points, which may or may not apply to the 9/11 trend line. Not all have been incorporated into my trend lines, and some data points provided shoulders for me to stand on to reach something else.
Mr. HybridRogue1, I relieve you of the obligation of giving me the last word, but further digs at Dr. Wood from below the baseline will be so noted and will reflect poorly on you.
Señor El Once : Other Cyberspace Encounters
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
It seems to me, I've run into you elsewhere in cyberspace, but I don't remember where. Could have been AlterNet, A Limey's Ramblings, ...? Our opinions at the time weren't conflictive, and we might have even been tag-teaming against some Q-groupie. In Googling to find (unsuccessfully) where we've crossed paths, I see you've battled the Albury-bot aka Agent Albury Smith in the same 9/11 spiel he tried to pull over our eyes here.
I seem far out in my championing of no-planes and DEW (formerly milli-nukes). Meanwhile, the Q-groupies have come up short in their disinformation to keep thought out of such taboo areas. Yet, evidence and rational analysis led me to such beliefs. I'd be overjoyed to be convinced of some other view in the matter. In fact my views having changed from "pods on planes" and "milli-nukes" among others proves that I am open-minded, can change, and am not religiously dogmatic.
On the other thread, you initially didn't see why I brought up Dr. Chandler. I have been respectively dinging on the outer doors of the gated 9/11 communities to get their leaders to take no-planes and DEW seriously in either their debunking or their acceptance, because I want basis to either change or confirm my beliefs. I don't want to be the sole bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot on the topic. The frivilous manner in which the topics are side-stepped doesn't convince me to change and only re-enforces that which they attempt to suppress.
You wrote:
While I did just get through a conflict of opinions with Mr. El Once on the previous page. I have since read quite a few of his comments on other areas, and find them quite useful and well reasoned. I would have had further commentary on the last page, but alas, I made the vow to give him the last word – perhaps prematurely. But it is done.
I relieved you of abstaining from the last word in the other thread, but I nudged you to rise up the baseline I'm trying to establish for Dr. Judy Wood discussions: participants have to read Dr. Judy Wood's textbook.
... but I have nothing to hide under an avatar. My name is...
Yeah, well, I do.
It took a ruthless, immoral govt agent to make this point clear to me.
"A coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage."
~ Marvin Kitman
It doesn't mean I can't be found by those with a badge and a warrant, or by those with rudamentary IT skills. It means I don't want to make it too easy for Google to vacuum up dots and effect the removal of my resume from future stacks of such when it is again my turn to look for employment. Google background checks can be the bitch you don't even see hexing your worthy endeavors. And they can affect both immediate and extended families.
For this reason, I'll stick to screen-names in my salutations even if another name is known to me.
Don't get me wrong. I stand behind my words... (until the great and glorious day when convincing evidence and analysis gets me to change my mind, at which point I'll apologize and start believing something better.) In fact, I'm hoping my words will mean something to my kids and grandkids -- not everyone in my generation was an ignorant [...] My cyber comments are only a little, but I hope them to be something.
"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little."
~ Sydney Smith, writer and clergyman (1771-1845)
Señor El Once : Shack's Impressive New Rabbit-Holes
Dear Mr. Shack,
I am most impressed. I haven't fully seen it all or digested it yet. You present several entrances to different rabbit-holes.
I couple of points stand out and stick in my throat, because if true, one of the trick-ponies (DEW) that I've been riding might suffer a heart attack mid-stream.
You wrote the piece from the perspective of what you would have done. You did your best to include historical facts supporting many of them, particularly at the beginning in the lead up.
Your supposition of everything being a Hollywood-style production -- including the footage of the towers' demolition -- is a step too far for my beliefs today. You add that you would put the WTC into a smoke-screen blanket to hide what was going on.
I also think you speculate too freely about conventional explosives being used, which maybe too quickly take exotic weapons (and DEW) off of the table. Come on! The pockets were deep; according to you, the towers were more or less vacant since 1993; the towers could have even been pre-demolitioned as supposed by hallow-tower theories; so they had no reason to shy away from exotic methods.
To further make the case of no conventional explosives, Dr. Shyan Sunder of NIST made the argument based on insufficient decibel levels, which would be easier to do with a straight face if he knew the destructive mechanism to be something else. Dr. Wood made the case based on seismic evidence, and how conventional explosives (in the towers as suggested by the demolition scheme) would transmit their sound energy through the structure to the ground to then be measured at a distance; the seismic readings did not indicate this. I make the case that massive overkill amounts would be required to achieve pulverization and that conventional explosives cannot account for the duration of under-rubble fire.
I can certainly bite off your speculation about media manipulation and wanting to sanitize and control what is broadcast to the public. I applaud you for demonstrating the collusion between networks as exhibited by their shared footage.
I could bite into the minor enhancement of footage, and particularly stills, after-the-fact. I do not bite into the faking of the entire demolition footage so that the real demolition could proceed behind the smoke screen in possibly some other way. Too much effort, when the WTC had to be demolished anyway (to achieve the objectives) and when the egos of the perps would want the deed captured on film.
Mr. Shack, you wrote:
Anyhow…what a brilliant scheme, eh? Now, as the Mastermind of the 9/11 PSYOP, and being well-aware of the dreadful flaws in my plan (what with making a joke of Newton’s Laws of Physics – such as aluminum airplanes effortlessly piercing plane-shaped holes in steel buildings just like Wile E Coyote ramming into rocks – and those same steel buildings collapsing TOP-DOWN in a plastic-looking/pyroclastic cloud of dust!) – I would naturally have to put in place and manage/finance by myself a crew of opposition ‘leaders’. I would have to employ gatekeepers to counter the expected crowd of ‘conspiracy-theorists’ (read “intelligent folks”) – in order to protect and ‘justify’ the absurdities of my hoax. If I were the 9/11 Mastermind I would therefore, naturally, employ weird-looking individuals (with CV-issues ranging from meth-addiction to to spastic behavior to childhood brain damage) to “embrace and promote” – but ultimately discredit – the REAL TRUTH, such as Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable (aka the Webfairy) and Judy Wood with her DEW theories (based on the fake videos) which are clearly meant to provide a ‘scientific explanation’ for the absurd ‘dustification’ seen in the many 9/11 collapse “videos”. I would gradually also introduce other fanciful figures, such as “Russian military expert Dimitri Khalezov”, to provide yet another alternative explanation for the absurd TOP-DOWN collapses seen in the fake videos…UNDERGROUND NUKES brought the towers down! Ha ha ha – how droll!”Nukes” are such a popular thing!
You've stepped on my toes with your swipes at Dr. Wood (and your support of conventional explosives, and your dismissal of DEW), and in the resulting pain I must utter pointed words: "Let us also not forget Simon Shack and September Clues when considering what could discredit the real truth!" Ouch! I apologize for that outburst.
I believe that all disinformation has to be based on a solid foundation of truth. Our task is to mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth found in the study of such disinformation. I encourage Mr. McKee's readers to earnestly study the rabbit holes that Mr. Shack provides in search of truth nuggets.
P.S. As I was in the very early stages of exploring your links, I found this
February 25th, 2011, 8:07 pm posting from you. [Disclaimer: I haven't read far enough in the thread to know if anyone caught the error.] The yellow dotted line in the first image is drawn incorrectly. The gif animation shows the correct position of the dotted line, which would be parallel both with the tower walls as well as walls of the building in the foreground. The first image, however, does not show the dotted line parallel with the walls of the foreground building (but it is parallel with the edge of the image). Thus, the discussion talking about "Daddy's beer can leaning to the right and falling to the left" is literally framed wrong.
[Because I'm Truth & Shadows resident no-planer and September Clues champion, you don't know how much it pains me to discover that error. Let this be an example of how everyone must approach the evidence of 9/11 objectively in search of nuggets of truth, and mindful of that which might not be.]
Señor El Once : My Hybrid View
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I will do my best to answer in a limited time frame what I can of your questions given in the postings January 31, 2012 at 12:59 am [when did leaders know...], January 31, 2012 at 2:47 am [false-flag attack...], and January 31, 2012 at 3:46 am [when did leaders know...]
I preface my response by saying that what I speculate below is my "hybrid view" [no pun on your name intended] as I try to "walk my talk" in mining, refining, and re-purposing (possible) disinformation sources for nuggets of truth and then in forming my own unsubstantiated trend line. Similar to Simon Shack's recent posting here, sometimes those sources take me a step too far in my understanding and beliefs, which reflects either my own human failings in being reluctant to embrace a radical concept at first introduction or my sixth sense to avoid taking that step too far into nothingness.
You wrote:
Nevertheless, I have found nothing to compel me to interest in Wood’s theories. Still even yet, I never get a digest of what she is saying by any of her supporters – something to grasp…as if there is something esoteric in the work that cannot be passed on to the uninitiated until he has seen the panorama in it’s whole as revealed in this book. What I find in place of an attempt at rephrasing her case in blog sized bits – is rather a rabid critique of those who have rejected her on their own separate grounds.
May not be the case with you, but in some of my laps around the 9/11 block, I found the "separate grounds for rejecting Dr. Wood's work" to be shakey in a great many cases. Like a brain-dead echo chamber, all too frequently the rejection was based on superficial reasons (e.g., photogenic or articulation). Rarely was it series of specific references (Chapter X, Paragraph Y) and explanation of why a given point was wrong.
Certainly some debunking attempts did go to some depth, but they were notable as much for the hairs they chose to split as they were for the hairs left un-groomed, with nary an acknowledgement of something that is truthful, can't be debunked, and that they actually agree with. The covert intention was to debunk point A in order to get points B, C, and D taken off the table without further consideration.
So all I would ask of anyone who promotes this work to give some indication as to what is said therein, just the beginning of where her argument starts, paces and concludes.
"Just the beginning of where her argument starts, paces and concludes" sounds easy to deliver on, but actually isn't. Maybe because of how she was vilified over years; maybe because of a deal cut for survival that she wouldn't spell things out and connect dots: Dr. Wood's textbook is short on the conclusions.
It is left to readers to connect dots and possibly come to their own conclusions. The craftiness of her work are that she sneaks into the public realm lots of evidence and anomalies that need to be addressed. One dot she presents is cold-fusion, another is free-energy, and yet another is hurricane Erin. All may be totally true; yet none (or few) may be in the trend line of what actually happened.
I have never read any one who has made even the simplest case for the positive on her work, it all seems to be a case on the negative to her detractors.
It is well you should make this distinction. I am one of the few who attempts to make "the simplest case for the positive on her work." This has necessitated looking for the positive in her work, and not being turned off by the first negative (or inaccurate or inapplicable) facet stumbled upon in her work. I don't mind being proven wrong one day, and I threw down the challenge (using my own money) to various 9/11 leaders to affect this outcome. I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the topic and desperately want to be brought back into the fold with the other sheep. Yet, this is not to be.
Science-challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement echo the sentiments of its leaders without learning of the limits, boundaries, or skew of their leader's work; the leader is smarter than they are in that field, which is why they defer to him on technical specifics.
Is there no one capable of explaining in some actual rational manner what the significance of hurricane Erin being 200 miles to the east off the coast of NY?
I can point out five points regarding the significance of hurricane Erin. I preface this by stating this is my speculation, but based on data points mined from both Dr. Wood and Mr. Shack.
1) The primary purpose of hurricane Erin may have been as a last-resort back-up clean-up plan, should other 9/11 events not got off as expected or been too exhuberent in the energy of their execution. The perps could have suppressed media reports (and later re-written and re-broadcast them) while Erin was steered in to further "obscufate" the already mangled evidence.
2) Mr. Shack (rather recently in these forums) suggested that "hurricanes suck" in the sense they would draw all clouds and present perfectly clear skies as the ideal backdrop for the media fakery they were going to deploy as part of their hoax.
3) Dr. Wood brought up hurricane Erin in the context that it represents lots of energy. In the sense of Tesla and free energy, this storm could have been the energy source for either or both space-based and land-based DEW. (Ruling out space DEW for the towers does not rule it out for WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6.) I do not discount the science potential, but I remain on the fence regarding its operational applicability to 9/11.
4) Dr. Wood's research into hurricane Erin, however, has the side-effect of supporting Mr. Shack's views of how the media was controlled on 9/11 before any pixel hit any tower. Hurricane Erin still could have presented dangers in a storm surge and a hazard for cross-Atlantic flights; it could have changed direction naturally and hit New York, if not some other city along the East Coast. They were tracking it all week. Thus, it should have still been news as a top item for the cheery weathermen at least. Dr. Wood points out the lock-step media silence on the topic (with only one or two early exceptions).
5) Lots of people have questioned the many stunning coincidences on 9/11 with regards to FEMA as well as the many simultaneous military exercises. If memory serves me, FEMA had set up on 9/10 (the day before) some sort of a command or emergency response center on a pier in preparation for their emergency exercises on 9/11. Why on pier, particularly if the news stations had been tracking a hurricane all week as it went up the coast? This exposes foreknowledge in a major way, because a hurricane could well have been the emergency FEMA was called to, yet being based on a pier right on the coast, their very preparations would have been wiped out in literally the first destructive waves of a hurricane. ... Unless of course, they knew better and that the hurricane was a non-issue.
6) The devil in these details is HAARP. Deploy HAARP to steer a hurricane, and FEMA can set up on a pier with no fear (unless things went horribly wrong), the media footage can be faked more easily, and the just-in-case clean-up surge is waiting in the wings. HAARP and weather control is one of those military secrets that the govt does not want to let the public know they have. This is a deep rabbit hole with much validity in some of the anomalous yet very destructive weather patterns (and earthquakes) experienced through out the world (including Japan) over the last decade at least.
I am open to it, if you can give me the slightest thing to latch onto. Do you actually find anything in this book that you can claim means beyond a reasonable doubt DEW had to have been one of the mechanisms used in the tower’s destruction?
Yes. For me, it was connecting dots (evidence points) presented by Dr. Wood.
For example, through Dr. Wood's work, it became clear to me why pulverization was not an unfortunate side-effect of an extremely thorough and overly redundant military operation: it was a demolition goal.
Dr. Wood brings together the evidence that the bathtub was near prestine, and that only 4 of the 7 subway lines in the basements were blocked. (This debunks deep underground nukes.) She discusses the seismic evidence, and how they represented neither conventional means (that would transmit energy from the explosions through the structure to the ground to be picked up on monitors) nor nukes (for similar reasons).
Her point was that traditional demolitions -- and certainly foreign terrorist plots -- do not resort to pulverization that was observed in the early phases of their destruction. Pulverization amps up the logistics hassles and represents a risk of detection if implemented with traditional demolitions (made to look like terrorism) or actual foreign terrorist plots, in addition to such methods resulting in large chunks of building -- even multiple conjoined stories -- falling from great heights, obtaining large amounts of kinetic energy, and subsequently damaging the bathtub that held out the Hudson River. The subway in the WTC basement had tunnels connecting it with other buildings as well as under the river. Had the bathtub suffered damage, the basements of many buildings would have flooded and expanded the damage. Plus, flooded basements massively complicated the Gold Heist to the vaults under WTC-4. (Some of this gold was found; neatly loaded in a truck under WTC-5 without any drivers who obviously got word to get out.)
DEW is operational. Take a google on "Active Denial Systems" for crowd control. I've seen videos of lasers taking out missiles.
For completeness, I'll repeat something I've written many times before. Pulverization is a massive energy sink that would necessitate massive overkill amounts of conventional or exotic (e.g., super duper nano-thermite) materials. Likewise, the weeks long duration of under-rubble fires also can't be explained without massive overkill amounts of said materials, and even then they can't really.
The above means another destructive mechanism must be found that can meet the energy requirements.
The measured radiation levels together with the hot spots and energy requirements hint of nuclear sources (conventional micro-nukes or cold-fusion). Lead by Dr. Jones, conventional micro-nukes were taken off of the table, at the expense of any further supposition by him of the energy source, including cold-fusion. I was in the multiple milli-nukes camp for quite some time, but the nukes' flashes, blast waves, and EMPs were missing or hazy, not to mention learning of the fracticidal side-effects of using nukes in tandem close to one another.
Whereas Dr. Wood devoted chapters to talk about free energy (from space) powering a DEW device on the ground, the seed it planted with me was to consider multiple DEW devices that are separate from their energy source. The concept of "free or radiant energy" coming from a nuclear (or cold-fusion) generator could power the DEW devices either "wirelessly" or by being "plugged in." [I have bike lights that use only one wire to feed energy from the generator to the light, and then the metal of the frame is the return electron path. In a similar manner, massive power cables could installed in the elevator shafts -- one way; whose to say the steel in the towers wasn't the return electron path.]
If you look closely at the destruction of WTC-1, you'll readily see "the spire". WTC-2 also has a portion in its destruction where a third of the structure is visible through the dust while the upper two-thirds have seemingly fallen around this block, before it too falls into its footprint. I speculate that these are two examples of where DEW devices were placed, before clean-up operations took them out.
I don’t often site Occam’s Razor, because it can be framed in spurious manner. But I do see it applicable in this instance, because the simpler explanation of a set of chemical explosives already fits the bill, and have been proven to have been present by forensic study.
I disagree for reasons of Occam's Razor. I assume that by "a set of chemical explosives", you are including nano-thermite in the set. I do not discount their involvement. But as I've repeated many times to Mr. McKee's readers, the logistics required for installation becomes unmanageable and very risky when extrapolating to the amounts required for pulverization. Alas, despite the proven forensic evidence of "a set of chemical explosives", it does not account for hot-spots and under-rubble fire duration.
Mr. Shack in this thread brought up the premise that the towers may have been mostly empty, with the exodus of flesh-and-blood tenants beginning in earnest in 1993. This could explain the lack of office content while reducing the risk of detection. If true, this also reduces the risk of detection. However, it doesn't remove the hassles of the massively overkill logistics.
If deep-pockets can afford the other aspects of the hoax, it can certain spring for exotic destructive means. You can bet there were colonels and generals literally dying to deploy such weapons from their arsenals.
Whereas they had control of the message so as to keep the public's perceptions in check (no talk of nukes, no talk of the true energy requirements of pulverization, no talk of the physics-defying collapse speed if only using Newton's gravity), you can bet that other world govt's weren't so naive. The skewing of the destructive mechanisms in the media sent a message to them, underscored by President Bush himself: "You are either with us or against us. You are either with the US or with the terrorists." This is so wonderfully oxymoronic, just like his quip "let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories."
You might also address the nature of the beam. Is it presumed to be coherent? Because there are some claims, such as the said damage to cars and surrounding areas besides the target {towers} that would indicate a more scattered characteristic.
In my speculation, I say that the beam from the DEW device was coherent and accurately targeted within the boundaries of the towers' external walls. After all, it accurately severed all floors from the spire making it look like a left-over fish spine from Jesus's feeding of the masses with a few loaves and fishes.
The scattered damage to cars and surrounding areas -- in my speculation -- I attribute to the separate energy source. The nuclear (or cold-fusion) generator may have emitted electromagnetic fields (or other anomalous fields ala the Hutchinson effect) as a side-effect, that slipped through, say, the window slits. Its polarizing form flipped cars in cases like a powerful magnet, and more importantly induced massive Eddy currents in the (sheet) metal of car parts intersecting such fields. Large Eddy currents caused heat that ignited paint and touching-plastic components (like door handles, gas caps, door & window seals). Anomalous burn patterns resulted from what was line of sight from the source to an area of the car.
Pictures of cars outside the towers burning before either had fallen suggest to me they were radiated in EM fields early during the powering-up of such an energy generator.
You may respond as you wish. However I am not moved by the idea that I should have no opinion on the subject until I read her book. As I said, I am not critiquing her book, I am not interested in the book, because of my take on the author. It may be nice to have a beautifully produced coffee table book on the subject of 9/11. I’m sure it is, but that is not my itch at the moment.
You are entitled to your opinion and to base it on whatever material you find suitable, but that does not make it applicable to the debunking of her book, which is the new mark in the sand for all who want to. Consider this first impression by Mr. Chandler:
Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project.
The book was meant to be validated or debunked.
Just to be thorough, here are questiosn posted in the other thread by Dear Mr. HybridRogue1:
A specific question on the Wood hypothesis is; what is the proposed power of this beam weapon? What is the proposed power source for said energies? Where are these things, or this thing assumed to be located in relation to the WTC?
The power of the DEW device is limited by what it can accept and what a nuclear (or cold-fusion) source can supply. I describe it like a microwave oven that has sufficient energy to instantly turn residual water molecules in building content (e.g., concrete, drywall, paint, etc.) into steam, whose expanding volume pressure blows the content apart. I contend that much of the "smoke" streaming off of falling pieces isn't smoke at all. It is dust and steam. Note how the inside of the external walls in some cases are already "steamed clean down to the metal" of any paint, while other pieces have streams of dust coming off it.
My proposed power source was a small nuclear (or cold-fusion) type reactor. Could have been place in the basement or some other level. Unsubstantiated comment from me is that maybe this was in the center of the WTC-6 crater.
The DEW devices were planted at several levels within the towers, timed when they were to go on and off. Wouldn't surprise me if a blanket of nano-thermite was placed around them to melt their remains once it had executed their multi-floors of destruction.
Is it supposed to be based on scalar or microwave, or a combination, or something brand new? Perhaps ultrasonic – maser?
This is left as an exercise for you. Your research will prove that this isn't so far fetched. Our military is operationally much further along than any YouTube video will hint.
And as the hurricane is asserted to be a byproduct, or mechanism of this beam{s}, can you try to give a simple explanation as to what it’s purpose would be?
The hurricane was never asserted to be a by-product of the DEW device. Dr. Wood drops the hint that, agreeable to Teslian free energy, it could be a source of energy, particularly for space-based beams (that haven't been ruled out causing the WTC-6 crater, the WTC-5 bore-holes, or the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice.) I don't bring this up under the auspices of it being my position or understanding, but to help jar readers into thinking outside the box.
From January 31, 2012 at 3:46 am Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
[I]t is indeed standard jurisprudence, that unless the party admits to the mistake, and admits an alternate opinion, in other words, ‘recants’, the testimony is held in contempt to the truth, whether framed as a lie or not, it would attain the same status. I don’t think that such basic standards of common law are an unreasonable precedent to follow.
It first must be determined what the error is. The error has to indeed be an error, and not some straw man.
In the case of the mistake I brought up (cars towed to the bridge), I recall that Dr. Wood did address it, just not everywhere it appeared (like her website) and with a false impression lingering in some places.
You can let Wood dazzle me by addressing the questions I asked.
I believe I addressed your questions based on nuggets of truth mined from Dr. Wood. FTR and also to my chagrin, the purpose of Dr. Wood's textbook was not to dazzle or address your questions. It was to plant seeds in your mind that we need to be looking outside the box.
Señor El Once : Modern energetic materials cannot have it both ways
As to the Hutchinson effect, what do you know of this aside from the mention by Wood? The publicly available information on Hutchinson is quite controversial.
Not much, and agreed it is quite controversial.
Some of it has the appearance of a card to "get out of assassinations free" for reasons of insanity. Killing the crazy does more to help give validity to the crazy story.
One critical point I do have is the assumption that the modern nano-milled energetic materials lack the explosive pressure needs to result in the utter disintegration of the non-metallic elements in the buildings.
If you gleamed that I as stating "modern nano-milled energetic materials lack the explosive pressure needs to result in ... [pulverization]", your assumption would be wrong.
Modern energetic materials cannot have it both ways: causing pulverization and then later burning at high temperatures for weeks. This is the first area where nano-milled energetic materials come up short in being the catch-all explanation to 9/11.
The second area is that to the degree pulverization happened in the towers, overkill quantities would be required. Doesn't seem logical if other easier-to-deploy mechanisms are in your arsensal.
Radiation measurements are also a flag, even if they don't match a purposely narrowly defined set of nuclear causes.
I also disagree emphatically that there was a lack of such metallic debris in the aftermath. Such material covered more than 10 acres and beyond the complex as you well know.
If you gleamed that I as stating "there was a lack of such metallic debris in the aftermath", your assumption would be off-base.
Let's take your 10 acre covering of metallic material as the gospel. Spread kind of thin when trying to figure out how WTC-4's main edifice got flattened and not its north wing, both of which has recognizable amounts of WTC tower steel on them, but not to a leveling degree.
Also, of the metallic debris you speek of, how much was external steel? When contemplating the steel trusses that the floors rested on and connected from center core to exterior wall and that was in the very thick of the path of great resistance, this is the type of metal that I think is under-represented.
[I]t is all speculation at this point. ... As FUN as speculation can be, I see the need to address the problems caused by the Public Relations Regime as more worthy of my concerted attention. Cracking the induced emotional zombie state of the majority of the population is what I am mainly into at the moment.
Speculation has been prematurely stopped under the auspices of, "Oh, now that sounds really bat-shit crazy even if true. Let's go forth with the lowest-common-denominator core concerns, so we don't turn anyone off." Watered down and forced to go through corporate media, it is easy to ignore, flip the channels, and remain with ass firmly planted on the couch.
Shock-and-awe, Baby! It's what got us into the mess; it's what can get us out.
The truthful depth of such rabbit holes into how the hoax against us and the world were Shock-and-awed into the thinking public's brains, a new level of consequential activism might be obtained that could clean govt and its institutions & agencies of its rot.
Señor El Once : The pitfalls of riding two trick ponies
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
The pitfalls of riding two trick ponies is that I'm only one. Now they both come up in this thread in a serious and respectful manner, and I'm not that good at multi-tasking.
Worse, one of my beloved ponies (DEW) is being slaughter by Mr. Shack, who people could credit with being "the trainer" of the other pony I ride, (no-planes, video fakery, September Clues). What irony!
Mr. Shack introduced several rabbit holes that I need to follow and research, because until I read them, I'm not on the same page and am arguing from a place of ignorance. In a similar vein, you have some reading to do before you and I are on the same page at least with respect to discussing the DEW topic.
Please accept my apologies if I place our DEW discussion on the back-burner as I let the ClueForum rabbit holes suck up my time for awhile. Pay attention to my discussion with Mr. Shack, and join in once you too have gotten on the same page with the research.
I do think you’re barking up a blacked out lightpole with the amount of steel in the debris, and I would point to the early observations of Manning at Fire Engineering magazine, based on his brief walk-through of the ground zero site as pertains to the fleets of trucks already removing tons of beams and box columns. Also mentioned is the coincidence of the handy lengths many of these beams were – that just fit inside the truck beds.
At any rate there is pretty common acceptance that the great majority of tonnage of steel is accounted for in general numbers.
To show that I am not married to the concept, if I expressed doubts regarding the amount of steel in the debris being possibly inadequate to what was contained in the towers in the form of floor trusses and rebar, then let's set that aside and go with your belief.
"Dustification of steel" has never really been my axe to grind; I was all about the dustification of the other building content. And from what I recall of my matron saint Dr. Wood, her usage of the phrase "dustification of steel" came from one view of the spire that shows it seemingly disappeared while dust puffs lingered in the air where it once was. Although it takes some effort, a second video can be found that offers a different, clarifying view of the spire in its last moments. Video 2 shows the spire falling over and almost directly towards the vantage point of video 1, and thereby accounting in a quasi "optical illusion" of a spire being dustified. Moreover, at one point I may have stumbled upon an image of the aftermath that showed the spire slightly folded on top of other debris.
I'm not sure whether this second video was ever brought to Dr. Wood's attention so that she could correct the record.
Whereas you might legitimately use it (or not) as a second example of:
standard jurisprudence, that unless the party admits to the mistake, admits an alternate opinion, and ... ‘recants’, the testimony is held in contempt to the truth.
It makes no nevermind to me whether she does or doesn't. My purpose is to mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth. Thus, "dustification of steel" might not be one of them.
One more note – you dismiss the possibility that unreacted thermates may have been forced under the pile to continue reacting there, which would be a source of heat for the foundry like conditions described. They would also provide the necessary oxygen. Would a beam weapon provide such oxygen in your scenario?
You've got two major errors in the above paragraph.
I'll start with the second one. It isn't a "beam weapon" that would account for the source and duration of the heat in the rubble pile. The DEW device is the knife way up in the tower; it can do no destructive cutting without "a hand and arm" (e.g., a source of energy) grasping its handle and forcing it. My premise -- a hybrid off-shoot from Dr. Wood -- is that the DEW devices were distributed or separate from their supply of energy, which I leave open as being potentially one or more milli-nuclear or cold-fusion reactor. Unspent but fizzling nuclear material from such an energy source would be "a source of heat for the foundry like conditions described" as well as accounting for the duration, 1st responder ailments, and hazmat clean-up techniques (e.g., putting lots of water on it, trucking in clean dirt, spreading it out, letting it absorb, scraping it up again, and trucking it out.)
Now for the first error. I do not dismiss unreacted thermates for being a source of heat in the pile and being able to generate its own oxygen in the burning process. I have no doubt that it probably happened on occasion. One discussion participant from elsewhere was adament that thermite flakes and (cooled) iron spheres were found near a quenched hot-spot or two.
Where I dismiss unreacted thermates is in accounting for the duration of the heat. I'll even let you speculate that (at least) two kinds of thermate were used: on one extreme were extremely fast/flash burning whose explosive energy you want to credit with pulverizing content; on the other extreme were slow burning cutting charges as exhibited by Dr. Jones and Mr. Cole in their experiments. Any way you combine them, if you do the math and run the numbers, for thermates to account for the duration of the heat you would need massive quantities and probably a conveyor system to continually feed it to the hot spot. (Obviously, working conveyor systems for thermate weren't present under the rubble.)
In this manner, the nano-thermite sacred cow (as the end-all, cure-all, answer-all) gets slaughter. I'm sorry.
Meanwhile, my precious DEW pony is in line at Mr. Shack's butcher, and I need to see if I can get a stay of execution.
P.S. Thank you, Mr. HybridRogue1, for engaging me in this respectful debate.
Señor El Once : Benchmark: premises that haven't convinced me
Dear Mr. Shack,
I most appreciate you taking the time to engage me in this respectful discussion. Your last two posting presented several rabbit holes that I have not had the time to explore. Anything I write here and now would be a gut reaction made in ignorance, because I haven't done the legwork (yet) to at least get on the same page and then analyze what the page says.
I'm responding from my gut and ignorant state anyway, because if nothing else it'll benchmark my opinion. As I complete my homework, we'll be able to see whether a convincing case is made to make me change my mind and establish a new benchmark.
I'm regrouping the links you provided. The first set are those that I have run across in one form or another in the past. I haven't explored these from beginning to end yet, but I'll go out on a limb and benchmark that I am probably already a duped useful idiot (or teetering that direction) on all in this first set.
As such, this member of the September Clues choir isn't going to go there. However, I strongly encourage all readers of Mr. McKee's blog who haven't been there, haven't researched it, and haven't "looked the devil in the eyes" to form an opinion of the depth of the 9/11 hoax based on a review of Mr. Shack's evidence to go there and validate (or not) these wonderful links.
- THE 17 SECOND ENIGMA
- THE FALLING MAN
- Now, you may ask, what about the 3000 alleged 9/11 victims you have heard of?
- And what about the “Heroic Firefighters”?
The following set are those links with premises that haven't convinced me. The benchmark for me today is that I consider them to be a step too far (into nothingness). As was mentioned, that opinion is based on nothingness as well, due to me not being on those pages and considering what is presented. I am ignorant and hope to rectify that. [My apologies if my inability to multi-task has me go dark in this discussion for awhile as I complete that homework.]
- Collapse Animation
- THE CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE
- And what about the Ground Zero rubble?
The above and the tenor of Mr. Shack's posting suggest that none of the demolition footage was real. This literally makes my stomach turn, such is the pain of having one of my beliefs destroyed.
I can't even argue against such statements, because everything that I would base my arguments on -- namely every YouTube video and every still image of WTC buildings being pulverized that I have ever seen -- is being called into question. All I have to go on is the A and B shots, the before and after pictures, countless images of the towers from their inception until September 10 and then (suppressed and difficult to find) images of the destruction aftermath after September 11. Everything between A and B is getting yanked from the table of my understanding.
I'll eat some Gummi-bears to settle my turning stomach and embark in the coming days on the quest of getting "on the same page" with Mr. Shack in at least reviewing the same work.
As part of my benchmarking efforts, Mr. Shack deserves an immediate response to the following:
Firstly, I hope you will agree that showing to the World TV audience REAL images of the WTC demolition job would have been an incredibly silly choice on the part of the perps. Whatever explosives were used, anything that may have gone wrong would have been aired on LIVE TV – to the entire world!
Yes, I agree. This is an excellent point.
Secondly, the physics of the TOP-DOWN collapses shown on TV are simply laughable. How could the burning top sections of the towers (“hit by airplanes”) possibly cause the collapse of ALL the floors underneath? This could only happen on Fantasy Land – in a cartoon dimension! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm
That the destruction would be TOP-DOWN isn't an issue for me.
But what does become an issue is that an airplane crash, jet fuel, and office furniture fires would result in such complete and thorough pulverizing destruction at speeds close to free-fall through the path of greatest resistance. Yes, this is physics-defying and as you say laughable.
And it contradicts your third point.
Thirdly. since the perps could rely on the full complicity of the TV networks, don’t you think that they would have used this asset to its full potential? Whatever explosives were used to bring down the WTC – do you think that they would have been comfortable showing it all on LIVE TV???
Given: the perps could rely on the full complicity of the TV networks, with lots of examples including the lock-stepping weathermen suppressing news of a hurricane off the coast of NY.
Agreed: the perps would not have been comfortable showing the details of their chosen mechanisms of destruction on LIVE telly. They would be eager to suppress explosive (or nuke) flashes or destruction being thrown too far. They would have masked out any left-over or hanging-from-a-spire DEW devices. Etc.
But I maintain what was shown did not use that asset to its full potential.
Otherwise, they would have fixed the glaring errors in the physics that was depicted in their Hollywood production. They would have slowed down the footage or manipulated it in a way so it wasn't damn close to free-fall. They would have focused narrowly on sections so as to obscure and hide the big picture. They would have not made available long-shots that show top-to-bottom destruction.
It all comes down to this: If you are able to accept that the 9/11 images (of airliners melding into steel buildings as if they were made of Jell-O) are totally fake – why would you lend any credence to the successive imagery showing the equally absurd, TOP-DOWN tower collapses?
I acknowledge that the imagery showing the tower's destruction is susceptible to manipulation as well. But I do not agree to what it all comes down to and that we have to remove all credence to the demolition images.
The fault lies not with their video manipulation skills, but with the thorough mechanisms of destruction.
You seemingly tie a hand behind my back by taking away reliance on all collapse images from A [post-September 10] to B [pre-September 12]. With my free-hand I type that the WTC complex was still destroyed in a spectacular manner requiring lots of energy. Your dismissal of efforts to guage and frame that energy requirement appropriately is inappropriate and unsubstantiated.
And this is where Dr. Wood comes back into the discussion. An uncontroversial aspect of her book making it worth its price alone is that she uses images and maps [pre-A] to put into perspective a great many images of the aftermath [post-B].
Although Mr. Chandler's skimming of Dr. Wood's book doesn't hold it in high regard, he did have this positive first impression: "Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." To me, that says: Dr. Wood's textbook is destined to be validated or debunked, but not ignored.
Regarding Judy Wood, I am sorry if our opinions diverge – and I can well understand the fascination people may have for her theories. Lest you think that my take on her is purely personal – or is grounded in thin/ or insufficient evidence – you may wish to sift through the numerous discussions we have had about her role over at Cluesforum (just do a forum search for “Judy Wood”).
[Your forum needs a subscription feature so that I can be kept abreast of responses to my comments as well as updates to threads that interest me.]
I've half heartedly done the "Judy Wood" search on your forum in the past. On another thread (or possibly email) awhile back you provided some links. I was not impressed with the level of discourse about Dr. Wood (much less her textbook or theories). Plus, Dr. Wood's area of 9/11 is mostly off-topic with regards to your forum -- I could see myself getting banned very quickly.
Just like I can't talk knowledgably about the demolition video hoax without going to your pages and objectively reviewing them, you are cripled in a similar manner in discussing important elements of Dr. Wood's textbook and what the energy requirements of the destruction were. (Flags go up when your speculation sticks with conventional explosives.)
I am trying to raise the bar and the level of discussion. The baseline established for this Dr. Judy Wood discussion: participants have to read Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook.
I get the impression that you could well afford a copy. Maybe you should order up several and give them as gifts to two or three of your tireless researchers in the Clues Forum. Remember the glowing review Mr. Chandler gives it: "It’s a HEAVY book. Someone put a lot of money into publishing this full color extravaganza thing." If nothing else, they'll be able to put it on their coffee tables as "full color extravaganza disinformation," one that they will be proud to show their grandchildren regarding how our generation was played.
If I error on your financial resources, I've made the offer a couple of times already and make it again this final time: it would be an honor to give you a copy. All I ask is an objective review: "the good, the bad, and the ugly." If the book is deemed worthy by you, you ought to pay-it-forward to someone else. If the book is deemed totally unworthy by you, then you probably won't mind parting company with it and giving it to someone who can appreciate it.
It looks to me like we both have our homework assignments to get us onto the same page and to the starting point for further discussion.
Señor El Once : Apologies for being wrong in benchmark
To the readers of this forum, Mr. McKee, Mr. Shack, and Mr. HybridRogue1:
I owe you an apology.
Mr. Shack has used in the past the interesting technique of putting (disinformation) videos side-by-side and having them club each other. The salient point isn't that one is more correct than the others. The issue is that at least one of them is false or manufactured, which proves complicity in managing the media message and duping us. Worse, all videos could be false.
I just experienced the painful experience of having the two 9/11 trick ponies (DEW and MM [media manipulation]) that I had been riding rise up from underneath me and clobber each other with their horseshoe clad hooves. And before the dust had settled, the ghost of a third pony (milli-nukes) is seen dancing around and laughing.
As trainer for the MM pony, well done, Mr. Shack!
Alas, the performance wasn't without flaws. First of all, titles like "Collapse Hoax" and "Faking of the Rubble" are too broad and misleading, because it is a fact that the WTC was destroyed and that there was rubble. More accurate titles might be "manipulating the collapse imagery" and "manipulating the rubble imagery."
Second, your forum and other links you provided ridicule top-down destruction for the wrong reasons and frames it -- whether or not on purpose -- as being media manipulation and screw-up's there. If we assume collapse initiation was a given, Newton's gravity alone cannot account for the speed and thoroughness of the destruction through its path of greatest resistance: the govt's lame, physics-defying explanation. When you apply sufficient destructive mechanisms (e.g., energy), you can destroy the structure any way you want: top-down, bottom-up, middle-out. The physics-defying destruction of the towers reflects the overly energetic destructive mechanisms chosen. Man, those covert ops were just too damn efficient, too thorough, too overly redundant! Video fakery shouldn't account for the silliness of the depicted top-down demolition, because by golly if they had the means to produce fake videos of destruction of the towers, they wouldn't have limited themselves to masking tell-tale flashes or too exhuberent laterial ejections of material. No, they would have slowed down the destruction so it didn't defy physics, which would have taken off the table all sorts of later conjecture by the likes of us!
Third and more importantly, when the destruction behind the media manipulation is framed as being possible with "conventional explosives" (as you did, Mr. Shack), it offers major under-estimations of energy requirements, logistics, and burning hot-spots in the aftermath.
Dr. Wood is the trainer of the DEW pony. DEW itself is not down for the count, but it is injured. Certain elements of the Hutchinsen effect being applicable to 9/11 as well as my hybrid-speculation into cold-fusion energy sources have hoof-prints on their ribs and are now gasping for Oxygen. Thanks to Mr. Shack's forum, I more readily see where Dr. Wood was duped and in turn misled us. (Let us be generous to Dr. Wood.)
The Clue Forum revelation is that none of the 9/11 images can be trusted 100%. However, the corillary is that nuggets of truth can be found in what may not have been altered as well as in what was. In other words, it is hard to create totally fake scenes of destruction, and much easier to take existing scenes of destruction and "enhance them" with features; the nuggets of truth are in both the manipulation and quite possibly what can be gleamed the original.
After viewing the evidence from Mr. Shack's forum of manipulation of the rubble images, two important questions are "what did they manipulate and why?" Here are some starting out-of-the-box thoughts that originate from me now trying to re-mount my milli-nuclear pony. Allow me to introduce the sister of "shock-and-awe," who is "calm-and-ahhh."
Shock-and-awe: 9/11 involved nukes in some capacities (but not all.) Consider the crater in WTC-6 and the pulverization of content. [Don't rule out DEW for some aspects of the destruction, even space-based DEW like the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, but set DEW aside for a brief moment.] Consider the energy required to pulverize content. Consider the lateral ejection of materials. Consider WTC-4 main edifice and WTC-2.
From a PR perspective, any whiff of 9/11 being a nuclear event reduces the line-up of usual suspects in a major way, including removing the patsy hijackers. Among those whom nukes implicates, is the US government, its agencies, and complicit foreign agencies (Mossad). Nuking has a PR stigma worse than just about anything; revelation that we nuked ourselves would result in wide-spread public revolt. Silverstein would not be able to rebuild on WTC. The subway through WTC would scare away riders. Thus, nukes was the line that could not be crossed in the public's mind.
Calm-and-ahhh: The EPA was forced into making an "air is clean" proclamation within days without substantiation that held up. In a similar calming trend, some of the image manipulation dealt with the insertion of people and first responders into the Ground Zero wasteland. "See? It isn't so hot, so radioactive, or so life threatening. These people are alive and walking about." Dr. Jones wrote his stilted analysis of the radiation measurments, "Because nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C have radiation signatures of X, Y, and Z, no nukes were deployed." (Nuke-peddler Dr. Ward claims that Dr. Jones' math redefines "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than before so that the phrase "below trace level" could be deployed.)
Dr. Wood's textbook legitimately debunked the deep underground nukes of the Russian disinfo agent with the pristine bathtub and seismic evidence. However, she tried to get milli-nukes off the table by questioning: were the fires under the rubble really that hot? Her evidence included pictures of mechanical equipment with exposed hydraulics that she correctly claimed would fail under such conditions (if real) when pulling out glowing chunks of metal. She also makes the correct assertion that all that glows is not hot, but was holding up strange pictures of firemen walking over a metalic material that was on fire on one end. Not to put any valid/invalid stamp on the science behind the Hutchinsen Effect, what is known from her book is that Dr. Wood reached toward this to potentially explain the anomalies she discovered in her collected pictures. Her collection of pictures included flipped cars, some of which may be faked images while others of which might be results of moving disabled vehicles to clear paths at later points in time. Pictures of flags on flag poles, trees with leaves, unburned street signs, and working stop-lights along streets (like Broadway) that otherwise resembles the aftermath of a nuclear heat wave were hard to explain when the pictures were considered 100% genuine.
Obvious, pictures is the key word from above that takes on new significance in the realm of none of the 9/11 images can be trusted 100%.
(Mr. Shack, you might have something personal to share on the following topic.)
Rumor has it that certain public leaders of the 9/11 movement have experienced threats, not just to their persons but also their families. Dr. Jones mentions this. Dr. Wood mentions this. Dr. Wood even lost a work associate in a strange unsolved murder.
In light of this, what sort of deals would you cut to preserve both your integrity and your life?
My unfounded speculation is that Dr. Wood was given the option of playing the crazy card. Her heavy, thick, colorful textbook maybe got its publication costs covered (maybe even at a loss), if she would include the Hutchinsen effect, debunk nukes, etc. To maintain her integrity, crafty Dr. Wood did just that but with the caveat of presenting lots of evidence, lots of hard-to-disprove dots, and few conclusions. She charged us over-and-over to "look at the evidence and let the evidence speak." And (with the help of Mr. Shack) now the evidence speaks, "I've been tampered with."
Unfortunately for me, my belief system is in flux. My how-it-was-done views have flip-flopped yet again. Most painful. (Damn you, Mr. Shack!)
Milli-nukes are back on my table. (DEW isn't necessarily taken off, but cold-fusion Hutchinsen effects probably are. Dr. Wood's textbook still has other viable nuggets of truth.)
Meanwhile, I eat humble pie and ask forgiveness for any misleading I might have done in my own pursuit for 9/11 truth.
P.S. Mr. Shack, I was composing this when you made your February 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm posting. You wrote:
I hope you may imagine how difficult it is for me to lend any credence to her thesis – since it is fundamentally based on photo/video material which I deem demonstrably, 100% fraudulent.
The 100% that you apply to "fraudulent" puts our definitions at odds. I can certainly see where additions (of people, flags, cars, etc.) and manipulations taint the image. When you write "100% fraudulent", it takes the whole image off of the table completely. Yet disinformation is all we have in getting the real 9/11 story. Within tainted images, I am still inclined to look for the pieces within that aren't tampered with, the nuggets of truth, for example, which through the depicted destruction demonstrate the massive energy requirements.
Worse than taking a single image off of the table, you take all images off of the table and all derived conclusions.
In reality even, some truth to tainted images may remain. It is important to know which images are tainted, what elements within the image are tainted, and what nuggets of truth remain. The level of destruction is one aspect to all images that remains and needs appropriate levels of energy applied to explain.
Señor El Once : Insufficient Criticism of Shack's Work to Discount It
To this day, I have not come across any knowledgeable criticism (or, as popularly called,”debunking”) of my work.
Dear Mr. Shack,
I agree. Having ridden your "September Clues" pony into many a 9/11 skirmish -- against both OCT-ers and 9/11 Truthers --, I have not come across sufficient criticism in specific detail or comprehensiveness to discount your work. Anthony Larson came the closest, but he petered out very quickly. A close second was Ace using your material, getting ambushed, but even then having your video fakery charges still survive.
It should not surprise thinkers that military control of the media would happen and would be seemless in America on the D-day. And if the media sees fit to photoshop the already drop-dead beautiful, then their persistent tweaks to all 9/11 images shouldn't be ruled out.
You wrote:
I used the uncompromising (and naturally off-putting) “100%” word to describe my assessment of the 9/11 videos fraudulent nature.
It isn't just off-putting. It shoots yourself and your purposes in the foot.
Even if you could prove that 100% of the 9/11 images were tainted somehow, you do truth no favors if you don't assess the percentage of potential manipulation that occurred in each one.
I mean, does the digital insertion of a (fake) crying firemen saluting a flag into the backdrop of the (real) twisted rubble of a building diminish the validity of the rubble? Maybe or maybe not. But if so, to what degree?
Yes, your efforts are proving that all 9/11 images should be questioned. But your imprecise language tends to throw out the untainted and truthful remnants that do remain within a picture, across pictures, across cameras, across time.
hybridrogue1 : Does it look real?
On CGI
Let me just make some general remarks about the field of special effects cinema, and how it trains the eye of the practitioner.
The prime motivation is simple, “Does it look real?”
The next question is, “If not, why not?”
Now without going through the entire history of the field, let me say that there have been many ingenious techniques throughout the time to create ‘believable’ special effects. All of these techniques have some form of ‘Artifact’ that give the trick away. Blue screen was somewhat convincing for the general audience for some time. Traveling matte techniques flourished through several generations of combinations of techniques for it’s improvement. Yet this endeavor came to a general halt with the advent of CGI. CGI has become the high point in visual realism, and yet..
And yet there is an aspect to it that can be sensed. It is something hard to articulate, but it is similar to the – what I shall term ‘fatigue’ of digital audio. The music may sound “pristine” to a listener who hasn’t known high fidelity in the analog realm – there is something missing in the waveform, because it is made up of digital information rather than the smooth continuance of an analog signal. There is also something “brittle” added to the sound for the same digital reason.
And even yet, these linguistic explanations fall short, for the same reasons as these media fall short: What is like is not.
So in using the terms, “fatigue” or “brittle,” I recognize that they are terms that only catch the essence of what I am trying to say, but cannot say directly. I can only say that there is more to it than simply the visual itself – something is “felt” intuitively in the interface between the visual information and the subtle processing by the mind/brain. Even though it is not as glaring as the ‘hiss’ of analog tape, there is this sensation of something ‘else’ being present.
To close, all I can say is that CGI, as amazing as it is, has this artifact that bothers the senses of acuity, and whether one can ‘get it’ or not is rather the same as trying to explain faith in some theocratic sense. All I can say is that when I see CGI, even as it has evolved to the point it was in the film ‘Avatar’, I can tell it is CGI.
ww
Señor El Once : burping up lots of cud
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Your posting on CGI is absolutely correct. I agree.
Mr. Shack thanks you for summarizing so wonderfully why there is even a September Clues and the clues forums. When CGI or photoshopping are employed, there can indeed be artifacts. All the more so when the digital artist is a wanna-be-professional, sloppy, or rushed, or when algorithm of the off-the-shelf software aren't refined or aren't enabled. September Clues et al have discovered the artifacts in digital images used to depict 9/11 and tell the story the government wanted told.
I can't tell you how it makes me feel even more so like a cow because I have to chew like cud yet again lots of information that I thought I had digested correctly. Thanks to Mr. Shacks enlightening forums, I viewed Dr. Wood's work in a different light. She was duped by some of the images, and she was probably not aware of the extent of their tainting.
A specific example of how my heart is being let down. From the images given her, Dr. Wood made a convincing argument that maybe there weren't hot spots. I recall one image taken from a higher vantage point that had rubble piles on the left and the right and a giant puddle of water an inch or so deep in between giving the impression that the whole area had been flooded with a good rain or a good massive hosing. Firemen were standing all over the piles and even in the puddle with their rubber boots, as if they were at a morning meeting and listening for their job assignments. Dr. Wood's contribution was that if there were indeed these unquenchable extremely hot hot-spots, it would have turned that water from other wet areas as well as this into steam. The steam would have been everywhere, obscured the views, even endangered the firemen.
Now, thanks to Mr. Shack, I slap my forehead with my hand when thinking on that (possibly) tainted image. The standing water was probably digitally inserted, and maybe even all of the heroic firemen seemingly called to assembly. I think an America flag was proudly waving somewhere in view. It was a distant shot that didn't show their faces well, but good enough to see that few of the (pixel) firemen were wearing protective breathing gear although most had something hanging around their neck.
My stomach is burping up lots of cud. Mr. Shack has provided a key to unlocking where Dr. Wood's "thick, heavy, extravagant use of color" textbook with over 500 images might sneak in its disinformation: tainted images that sometimes take a professional digital artist (like Mr. Shack's forum) to discover the incriminating artifacts.
As for your February 2, 2012 at 8:55 pm posting to Mr. Shack:
I will answer the last comment directed at me by Mr. Shack where he more or less demands that I make an assessment of yet more videos. This despite the fact that I have already stated I consider the effort a waste of time.
So I will make my answer simply, NO I will not. And part of this answer is tempered with a bit of anger at the suggestion that those who fail to recognize your self purported “brilliance” as “asses”
Take your yada up with Mr. Once, he is willing to play your game.
Mr. HybridRogue1: tsk, tsk. Two data points on you appear on the horizon through which a casual observer might be able to draw an unflattering line with respect to your open-mindedness and your objectivity.
The fog around point A is you letting your emotions control your actions. If a pass/fail test exists with respect to recognizing Mr. Shack's self purported “brilliance”, it would be based on an objective evaluation of the linked work that demonstrates it (or not). Point A is that you childishly refuse to "make an assessment of yet more videos." Thus, you can be graded as neither "not-an-ass" nor "an ass", because your letter grade is an "I" for "Incomplete" or "Ignorant."
Point B related to my attempts to raise the discussion on Dr. Wood's textbook by... [*cough*]... having people read Dr. Wood's "thick, heavy, extravagant use of color" textbook with over 500 images that we can now pore over and speculate what might be tainted, thereby separating the wheat from the chaff and the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation. Unfortunately, this was also a realm that you seemed reluctant to enter to overcome you ignorance, fixing Point B in a fixed location.
In this manner, points A and B get connected with a trend line by the casual reader.
Of the two data points, point A won't cost you money to do something about, but point B will.
It should be noted that Mr. Shack's informational rabbit holes burp up cud from our cow-like stomachs that we'll need to chew on all sorts of 9/11 topics (not just my trick ponies) that many of us thought well-digested, particularly if imagery were used in the argument. (Curse you, Mr. Shack!)
Because I don't relish being the sole duped useful idiot on any of these topics and want to be either set straight or vindicated, I do sincerely hope that you will become part of the discussion and will participate from an informed level (e.g., not ignorance), Mr. HybridRogue1.
Señor El Once : begin with one step
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You aren't the only one who has studied the videos. Just because only a few instances of fakery struck you, doesn't mean there aren't more. Maybe they should be revisited. That is all that was asked of you.
I don't really care whether you do or don't. Except you'll have little ability to get me to believe anything different unless you help me discover and expose the errors (or truth) in this. Except that if you don't make a earnest effort, it'll be the hole in your flank that I'll continually put the pointy-toe of my cowboy boots in and twist.
I've made the Allah argument before. You didn't take it far enough. The all-powerful Allah argument is essentially the OCT. If so, why did America end up persecuting Muslims? Instead, we should have been changing our religion to that of Islam. Because those in the govt didn't and didn't advocate it (Islam) either, we get a clue as to why it (the OCT) was wrong.
Beyond this let me say, that there are legions of complexities involved with the proposition that all of the videos of the event are digital fakes. I will not list them because it would be a list that could go on for hundreds of pages, and take endless hours of contemplation to consider.
A likely story. (*Written in a tone sure to piss off*)
A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. You give up before even filling out one page or burning one hour of contemplation.
I, too, find "the proposition that all of the videos of the event are digital fakes." This is a hook that hasn't been set deep in my gill to reel this useful idiot in. However, the evidence of video fakery that is brought forth, is convincing. I'm compelled to ask the question why would even pictures of the rubble be fodder for digital enhancement? Probably for the same reasons a tight security blanket was placed around the WTC right from the first day: to distract us and hide what they were really doing. And this is what puts the saddle back on my milli-nuclear pony.
You ask: "Why this evangelism for this particular angle on the subject?"
The angles in question from my perspective are video fakery, milli-nukes, and DEW.
I seek truth.
I see how 9/11 has been used against us, taken us to war, trampled the Constitution, and got even Christians thinking the most un-Christian, immoral things.
If we don't explore the mechanisms deployed against us -- particularly the media --, they'll use it again and again.
Every once in a while, I step back and ask if what I'm doing will really matter. Who's to say if the bit encoding of my words on various storage medium will ever survive for another generation to even access and read.
I do it for my kids. For any kids they may have. For my God which I hold as synomous with Truth and my judgment day.
Señor El Once : No Missile at Pentagon?
Dear Mr. Marquis wrote:
There was no missile. That is the first misconception.
You are correct that no missile was launched from the plane or flew parallel to the plane. Ruling out missiles prematurely might be a misconception.
I call your attention to the construction trailer that housed (supposedly) a backup generator. Instead of being neatly parked parallel or perpendicular to the Pentagon, it was angled toward the impact hole. According to the OGT, the low-flying aircraft scraped this construction trailer before impact and knocked it askew but aligned with the impact hole from any neat, square parking of other things, like the spools. Remember how those nifty animated 757 impact videos always had the plane grazing the construction trailer and knocking it into its alignment with the alleged flight path. Of course, the real fly-over plane was a good 100? above the construction trailer, so its skewed positioning was done on purpose beforehand.
Thus, in addition to the explosives already planted in the Pentagon, I speculate that they launched a missile from the construction generator that pierced through several Ring walls leaving that round 6? hole on an inner ring.
The number of pictures of this construction trailer aren’t that many. The other day, I had my hat handed to me by Mr. Simon Shack regarding evidence of tainted images of the destruction aftermath. I vaguely recall some of the strange footage of the Pentagon relating to the efforts of a fire truck and how not only did its spraying mask the scene at the hole, but also in cases looks suspicious from a video manipulation point of view.
Señor El Once : Construction Trailer Missile?
Dear Mr. Marquis,
When considering your flyover evidence and the minimal aircraft debris at the Pentagon, you effectively argue "no plane" in terms of wreckage. As part of this, you confidently state "no missiles."
When I consider the placement of the construction trailer supposedly housing a generator, the linear path of destruction through the Pentagon, the few images of that construction trailer, and the proven evidence by the "No-Plane Theater hour" (September Clues) of the manipulation of 9/11 imagery, I object to missile launched from the trailer being taken off the table by your confident statement.
Your statements against "no planes" at the WTC appears similar to the missile confidence statement. You wouldn't be attempting to mislead us? Case in point, you write:
The planes were pressurized and loaded with fuel traveling at a reported 600mph. They aren’t “hollow aluminum tubes”.
This speed at sea level in heavy resistive air exceeds the maximum rated speed of the air craft for high altitude in thin air. The salient point is that if such speeds were involved, a real aircraft would have been hard to control and probably would have suffered structural failure prior to reaching the towers.
Compared to the towers' steel walls over-designed for massive forces, an aircraft designed to be light does indeed more or less resemble a hollow aluminum tube.
Had Physics much in high school or college?
The second [aircraft] was caught on live TV, with hundreds of people WHO WERE ALREADY STARING UP AT THE BURNING NORTH TOWER.
Yes, you should review the various miraculous clips of the second aircraft that was caught (almost) live and broadcast on the telly. You'll see not only wasn't it live, but also that it was only one shot, that it was delayed 17 seconds, and that it had issues. You'll also discover the other shots introduce discrepencies with the first and the others in terms of flight path and rendering. The salient point is the video manipulation of the 9/11 footage is proven. In fact, we shouldn't even be arguing this, because it is an open secret that control of the media and message is a military objective.
The hundreds of people you mention are in question. Certainly, there were hundreds who didn't see or hear a damn thing while STARING UP AT THE BURNING NORTH TOWER, ... until of course later they saw the footage repeated repeated repeated repeated on the telly as cognitive dissonance gets cranked into high gear.
You write:
The biggest proof that the “no plane at the towers” disinfo op is an op, is that we’re supposed to believe they were able to rig a sophisticated real time, CGI animation for live TV from different and opposing angles, but they had to wait 6 months to LEAK, not officially release, a set of 5 grainy frames of an alleged 757 (minus it’s shadow) and then another almost identical grainy video from another almost identical angle over four years later. The second video of course was released after supposed truth members spent years trying to convince people the pentagon attack is a honeypot and they will release “clear video” of the pentagon attack.
I've bolded the words that you misframe. It was not real time. The closest shot to being live was delayed 17 seconds. Footage from the "different and opposing angles" were broadcast through the course of the day and week.
As for the second part of your statement regarding 5 grainy frames of a 757 that I assume you refer to the Pentagon plane, why do you inappropriately conflate the methods used to perpetrate the hoax at two different locations? Why don't you speculate why other Pentagon footage was never released. Maybe none of them could be easily doctored to show a plane (that wasn't 100 feet too high) and to not show the streak of a missile from the construction trailer.
You wrote:
The idea is to keep us arguing. Keep us debating. Keep us marginalized. Keep real evidence mired in pseudo conversations alongside bullshit put out by anonymous operatives posing as researchers who are merely seen as theorists.
I agree.
How do we separate the real evidence from the bullshit?
The first step is to review all the evidence, even that which you prejudge to be bullshit (e.g., September Clues, Dr. Wood). Get on the same page, as it were. Mine it for nuggets of truth. Form your own opinions.
And consider it a red flag and an attempt at a skillful wave-off when statements from "leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement" try to derail its value without going into specifics and while revealing a high level of ignorance.
Herr der Elf : Motivation for 9/11
The energy requirements of content pulverization are massive and were observable from the first few seconds of the towers' demise. The logistics of carrying this out using conventional explosives and even super-duper nano-thermite is both massive and risky. Why bother, if you've got deep pockets, an arsensal of exotic weapons, and generals & majors literally dying to push the button?
I've read Dr. Wood's textbook and highly recommend it. Its weakness is also its strength in providing data points and few connecting trend lines. The energy questions that she brings up are the smoking gun.
If you are a mainstream 9/11 Truther, you need to consider Dr. Wood's work, because when you do the math on super-duper nano-thermite, it cannot account for the duration (many weeks) of under-rubble hot-spots without (unrealistic) massive quantities and a way to feed it into the hot-spot. Another energy source for the destruction must be sought. (I vote milli-nuclear reactors to power DEW devices, if not milli-nukes.)
Among the official conspiracy theory (OCT) huggers in this forum are those who prop up the "peer-review" straw man. Are you so science challenged that you cannot review the work of another citizen?
Another participant challenged us to show the weapons. Google "Active Denial System" and see it played out at lower amperage. You can find YouTube videos of lasers taking out missiles. A DEW device could be targeted to miss the outer structure as well as the spire/core supporting it. The energy applied, like a microwave oven, would instantly change the state of residual water molecules in content (e.g., concrete, drywall, humans) instantly into steam, whose expanding volume pressure would rip apart/dustify the content, like what was observed.
Want to know why 9/11 was done? To rob us while advancing an agenda that was un-Constitutional, un-American, and even anti-American and un-Christian.
The WTC-4 had vaults with billions (some say trillions) in gold. A portion of this gold (millions) was recovered... loaded into the trailer of a truck under WTC-5 with no bodies. The human casualties at the Pentagon were limited to the Office of Naval Intelligence, its records, and its personnel who were investigating the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted for DoD spending announced by Rumsfeld on 9/10 (the day before). WTC-7 held the records of the SEC and their destruction ended many pending cases of financial misdeeds (of prominent Bush backers). Silverstein got a couple of billion in insurance for his $50 million investment in the WTC complex lease, although his lawyers argued he should get seven billion. Let us also not forget the relaxing of the trading rules in the days after 9/11 under the auspices of "stabilizing the markets." Lots of money was laundered then, and earnest students of this should google "Black Eagle Fund" and "Marcos Fund", essentially old gold stolen by Germans/Japanese from their enemies, found by the Americans, never repatriated with their rightful owners (as per law), and used all these years to fund black ops. One such operation was the tanking of the Russian economy through market manipulation during Bush I using chits on that gold that were to come due... 9/11/2001.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990's was made up of neo-cons, many of whom later obtained influential roles in the Bush Administration. They achieved most of their goals set up in 1999 which included: changing the rules for how and why America goes to war (e.g., pre-emptive strikes), changing the rules on how America does war (e.g., outsourcing, rendition, indefinite detention, torture), establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (moved from Saudi Arabia -- one of CIA-asset Osama bin Laden's demands -- to Bagdad), and acknowledging that all of the above would be a slow transition unless they had "a new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the public.
Anyone who has studied lending and the Federal Reserve knows that creating money/credit out-of-thin-air and charging interest are an unsubstainable model. Crashes have to happen. Those in the know reap rewards when the economy goes up, and have the inside track to reap greater rewards when it goes down. Lots of money changed hands towards the 1%-ers in the Bush years; we're not talking "stocks in corporations", we're talking the actual "brick-and-mortar" establishments being bought up for fractions of their values.
The media was complicit in 9/11. Dr. Wood hits the tip of this iceberg when she points out the weatherman-conspiracy to suddenly not report Hurricane Erin that they had been tracking all week, was at its closest point to NYC on 9/11, and represented a threat if not in turning toward to NYC then in storm surges, air plane travel, and danger to other coastal cities. "September Clues" (google it) takes you down a deep rabbit hole in how we were duped not only on 9/11, but continually since then by the corporate media.
I stand on Dr. Wood's shoulders, but deviate from trend lines that others might draw from her work. Free-energy? Cold-fusion? Hutchison’s Effect?
In my books, a milli-nuclear reactor (like from a submarine) to power multiple DEW devices in the tower would be easier to deploy and its unspent but fizzling nuclear material more easily explains unquenchable hot-spots, 1st responder ailments, dog-and-pony-show papers to dismiss anomalous radiation readings (e.g., Dr. Jones), and the nuclear hazmat procedures at ground zero (e.g., constant watering of the piles, trucking in fresh dirt, spreading it out, then removing it days later).
Slowly I've been discovering small errors in her work, yet many nuggets of truth remain that individuals need to mine, refine, and re-purpose.
Maxwell C. Bridges : help advance my search for truth
Dear Mr. Shack,
Our discussion on Truth & Shadows was enlightening. Caused me to change my tune.
To further my transformation and to help advance my search for truth, I was hoping that you would consider seriously this request for assistance from you and the Clues Forums team.
First, could you please set up a Dr. Wood's thread on Clues Forum whose purpose will be to evaluate images used to support certain contentions (e.g., Hutchisen Effect)? Let me know its URL. (Also, some sort of a subscribe feature would be useful, otherwise I might appear rude for not responding to others because I missed their comments. )
Second, could you offer me ("Herr der Elf" on Clues Forum and easier to type than "Señor El Once") some "limited immunity" or "protection from banishment?"
Of course, you may impose restrictions for me, even though I believe I have demonstrated that I am a respectful debate opponent who is open-minded enough to objectively review all of the evidence and change his mind when the foundation of his arguments is wrong. I'll try to confine myself to the Dr. Wood thread. (I'm just one person). But in the event someone directs me to some other thread with related evidence, I can't promise that I won't pipe up with a reasonable, respectful response there -- and who knows if a Dr. Wood comment/defense won't be appropriate.
My point is, I've read the opinions of other reputable participants and admins, and I fear that without a thin layer of protection from you, they'll ban me (for my defense of nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood) before we make the big discoveries that could potentially get everyone to agree.
The following are links to the initial set of images that could use expert scrutiny.
Some of the images are duplicate; I've provided multiple destinations when Dr. Wood's website gave such. One of the tasks for the researches is to determine if these images are truly source, or if other images available from different repositories are.
Once the source of the image is obtained, then of course the hunt for the artifacts of digital manipulation begins.
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/5139%7e0.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/indexpics/tn5139%7e0.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/5139_0_s.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/AftermathReuters10_s.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/moltensteelclose0yl_s.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4509/hotslagil3.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/hotslagil3.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4509/hotslagil3.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/September_13_from_space.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/hpics/010911_1867.jpeg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image190.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/010913_5316.jpg
To help motivate the Clues Forum, if these images are invalidated, they start to tear away at the foundation of some of Dr. Wood's theories (as well as other groups.)
I hope that you consider my requests reasonable and will help me in the search of truth.
Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
Señor El Once : On a certain level, we are all victims...
Dear Mr. Petrano, you wrote:
Are there any 9/11 victims who are designated Native Americans with disabilities for purposes of invoking the Rehab Act of ’73 and the ADA?
I bolded above what might be a loop-hole to get you what you desire. Define victim and what level of loss or damage they must experience to earn such a destinction. Victim does not have to mean "dead victim", but could mean "injured victim". What injuries are reasonable? Physical ones, sure. Loss of family member, sure. How about monetary losses? After all, 9/11 was about money.
On a certain level, we are all victims... If the money can be followed, if we can prove manipulation of financial markets, and if the various stock/real-estate bubbles were linked to the more obvious 9/11 agendas of multiple wars.
Here's an edited version of something I posted on another website but got stuck in the moderating queue. Its relevance is that the 9/11 victims goes well beyond those who (allegedly) were killed on 9/11. In fact, if you give Mr. Shack's simVictims premise any credence, then the true (dead) victim pool becomes very small.
Want to know why 9/11 was done? To rob us while advancing an agenda that was un-Constitutional, un-American, and even anti-American and un-Christian.
The WTC-4 had vaults with billions (some say trillions) in gold. A portion of this gold (millions) was recovered... loaded into the trailer of a truck under WTC-5 with no bodies. The human casualties at the Pentagon were limited to the Office of Naval Intelligence, its records, and its personnel who were investigating the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted for DoD spending announced by Rumsfeld on 9/10 (the day before). WTC-7 held the records of the SEC and their destruction ended many pending cases of financial misdeeds (of prominent Bush backers). Silverstein got a couple of billion in insurance for his $50 million investment in the WTC complex lease, although his lawyers argued he should get seven billion. Let us also not forget the relaxing of the trading rules in the days after 9/11 under the auspices of "stabilizing the markets." Lots of money was laundered then, and earnest students of this should google "Black Eagle Fund" and "Marcos Fund", essentially old gold stolen by Germans/Japanese from their enemies, found by the Americans, never repatriated with their rightful owners (as per law), and used all these years to fund black ops. One such operation was the tanking of the Russian economy through market manipulation during Bush I using chits on that gold that were to come due... 9/11/2001.
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990's was made up of neo-cons, many of whom later obtained influential roles in the Bush Administration. They achieved most of their goals set up in 1999 which included: changing the rules for how and why America goes to war (e.g., pre-emptive strikes), changing the rules on how America does war (e.g., outsourcing, rendition, indefinite detention, torture), establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (moved from Saudi Arabia -- one of CIA-asset Osama bin Laden's demands -- to Bagdad), and acknowledging that all of the above would be a slow transition unless they had "a new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the public.
Anyone who has studied lending and the Federal Reserve knows that creating money/credit out-of-thin-air and charging interest are an unsubstainable model. Crashes have to happen. Those in the know reap rewards when the economy goes up, and have the inside track to reap greater rewards when it goes down. Lots of money changed hands towards the 1%-ers in the Bush years; we're not talking "stocks in corporations", we're talking the actual "brick-and-mortar" establishments being bought up for fractions of their values.
Señor El Once : the agenda required the public belief of 3000 people being burned alive
Dear Mr. Petrano and Mr. HybridRogue1,
Allow me to express my gratitude for your contributions to the discussions on Mr. McKee's Truth & Shadows blog. I've been enjoying reading them.
Specific to a comment that Mr. Petrano has made a couple times:
[1]9/11 reveals our entire governing system supports an agenda requiring the state to burn 3000 people alive now and then, for shock effect.
[2] We are now part of a system that needs to televise the burning of 3000 people alive now and then, to further the agenda of the Crown.
My twist on this is that the agenda required the public belief of 3000 people being burned alive, not necessarily the real thing. Control of the media was essential to drumming in this belief into the public's consciousness: "Shock-and-awe, baby, and it could have been YOU in one of those planes or working in that office."
In terms of actual tactics and methods that even the Operation Northwoods document from 1960 outlines, faking some (or most) of the victims aligns with the goals of "managing the message." SimVictims can be perfect heroes in every aspect, sure to tug on emotional heart strings of the audience. A grieving family member [e.g., actor] can invoke the hero's name and what they would or would not support in American policy "to extract justice for my loved one's [...*sob* *sniff*...] untimely murder at the hands of Islamic Terrorists and to make sure no one ever enters an aircraft without obscene photos or physical groping to prevent box-cutters for sneaking in and downing symbols of capitalism."
I'm not saying that nobody died on 9/11: collateral damage (except for the ONI at the Pentagon, who were out-and-out targets.) I'm saying from what shallow review I've made of the victims [September Clues & Let's Roll Forums], a significant number of them have discrepancies, an aura of incompleteness to their lives, and in cases artifacts of digital manipulation that smell of simVictimhood.
Unfortunately, if the towers were already mostly emptied of real companies and their office space pre-demolishioned, then this provides fodder for duped useful idiots (like me) to ride our DEW and milli-nuclear ponies about to explain "the vaporization" of office furnishings and human remains from the debris piles. Sort of a set-up sting and clever strawman to entrap the religiously dogmatic in 9/11 truth theories.
SimVictims is not mutually exclusive with DEW or milli-nukes. A rational case for simVictims is that the WTC and NYC were not assailed for weeks with the smell of rotting flesh and swarms of flies, which it would have been had 3000 give-or-take real people been unable to escape their gilded office towers.
By a similar token, a rational case for DEW or milli-nukes is made first and foremost to account for the pulverization of (what remained of) the towers' content and structure, so that big chunks would not fall from great heights with the energy to damage the bathtub. Pulverization does double-duty in destroying what exactly was (or was not) in the towers with regards to office furnishings and flesh-and-blood office workers (and airplanes). Pulverization does triple-duty in providing a canopy of debris, dust, and smoke that spread over the complex to hide what was being done to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.
In past discussions with Brian Good, he made the comment (paraphrased) that the govt did not release surveillance footage from locations around the Pentagon, because they could. They could do whatever they pleased and shove it in the public's face for the corporate media to make us happy with. Putting Cousin Walker on the judicial review is another priceless example of the PTB doing whatever they want regardless of the suspicions and public grumblings because they could.
Señor El Once : additional destructive mechanisms and energy sources must be sought
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
My impression of Dr. Jones and cold-fusion was indeed skewed a bit by Reynolds-Woods. You set me straight in another thread with essentially very similar wording as you used here for Mr. Winterrowd. Because those old he-said/she-said threads can be tiresome, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
You go on to write:
[A]nyone familiar with the paper co-written by Jones and Harrit is a technical tour d’force that proves ABSOLUTELY that there were active thermitic materials in the dust samples from the WTC complex.
No argument there, framed as it were.
The point of contention with me is that two outcomes are observed in the destruction. One is the pulverization of content; the other is the DURATION of under-rubble fires.
Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit hint strongly that those active thermitic materials accounted for the first outcome [although with conjecture and not experimentation -- let's give this the benefit of the doubt]. But then, the good PhDs allow the science-challenge yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate this to the second outcome. As far as I know, neither have published the math on the quantities of this active thermitic materials that would be required to sustain the duration of the under-rubble fires. Duration was weeks; quantities would be massive -- above and beyond the overkill quantities for pulverization -- and lack a means to continually feed such hot-spots with active thermitic materials to keep them burning.
This alone suggests "additional destructive mechanisms and energy sources must be sought."
Due to the radiation readings and Dr. Jones' song-and-dance to explain away all types of nukes (when in reality, he debunks only two or three known conventional nuke types) quite possibly provides a hint where we should look. We should also consider nuclear powered DEW.
However, after Mr. Shack provided evidence how even some of the pictures of the rubble were enhanced (e.g., with digital means), it demonstrates the end-to-end control they had on the media and its message. We should ask ourselves why they would enhance images of the rubble. My two-bit answer is that they wanted to both hide things and present a calming image of the destruction by inserting images of then-healthy heroic firemen to prove how safe it was.
Due to the end-to-end media control, I have to question aspects of the observed destruction images that I had previously assumed were the gospel. I had jumped from the milli-nuke pony to the DEW pony due to the lack of nuke flashes and other things... as observed from images, now possibly tainted.
So now this duped useful idiot acts like a circus clown with a leg on each pony riding around the ring. Yee-Haw!
Yvonne : the 911 “explanation” was a LIE
Sir:
Because this is so long, I wanted to send it to your personal email, but I could find no contact information. That way, you could have decided what to do with it, if anything. It is easy to write in small bites if you are going to offer unsubstantiated criticisms, as Dr. Wood’s detractors have done, But to make a valid case FOR anything takes time. But here goes.
I knew, on the day, that the 911 “explanation” was a LIE. How? via paranoia? No. God forgive me for lack of tact, but honestly, through not being woefully ignorant. Since what passes for education is not your fault, it’s not a personal criticism of anyone who took longer.
I too saw an image of a plane that held its shape as it penetrated a building. “This is like a movie, it can’t be real,” I thought. The clincher was the speed with which the buildings came down. I’d say “fell”, but I never saw that. I saw a disintegration.
So, I knew.
My background: dual degree physics/maths, BS, summa cum laude; acquired before grade inflation and politics destroyed the integrity of higher education and made degrees worth as much as toilet paper, but not worth more. I accepted a fellowship to complete a PhD in physics (they wanted me badly enough to pay me to go to school). I soon afterward returned the honor, saying it was for personal reasons. It was. I had a soul.
I told interested questioners — for what I’d done was strange, rejecting a sweet deal for wage slavery — “If I am a physicist, the three-letter agencies will know every time I flush the toilet. if I accomplish anything, a breakthrough, they will take it. They’ll use it to control and to kill people, and to destroy the planet. And no, I don’t want to teach. My goal was research. Anyway, why would I teach others to do what I will not?” My formal education in physics ended. I did a couple years of mathematics graduate work. It was not the same, and I knew I wanted it to be a back door to physics…so I had quit. (This was well before the movie, “Good Will Hunting”. His speech about why he should NOT work for the NSA made me cry, for love of the film writer telling the truth. But I hadn’t been that good. My memory was not entirely photographic. I had to study. I couldn’t have made a speech like that without a rehearsal. But I could identify.)
How is this relevant? All cutting edge physics is classified. It is in no way in the public domain. In university, undergraduates are taught a watered-down, even misleading version of “physics”. I once asked a visiting professor why our texts gave impossible explanations for certain atomic phenomena, and he told me frankly that “the others don’t need to understand.” The engineers, the physics teachers…the lowly people outside the inner circle don’t need to know how the world works, you see. And this mis-education goes largely undetected. Because most students believe they understand material when they are able to regurgitate explanations (whether they make real sense or not), and many professionals admit they don’t understand much of their own field.
People who claim to doubt the validity of Dr. Wood’s research, which points to the likely use of directed energy weapons, complain that she does not describe the exact mechanism. She ought to be able to illustrate a patentable schematic? No. Wrong. All of that applied physics is classified, baby.
But does she need to do that, in order to make valid scientific observations?
No. The atomic bomb, to use an ugly example, was well understood in PRINCIPLE, long before it was created, which took some doing. That’s how applied science works.
When I say that she understands and describes the processes in principle, that is valid scientific principle, not in speculative, philosophical, literary, artistic, or imaginary principle.
That the weapons already exist has been proven by what happened to the two towers, UNLESS all or almost all of Dr. Wood’s evidence is incorrect. That seems a ludicrous suggestion, which you can only discern that if you read the book.
Let me be clear, using an example.
I do not have to know the techniques by which video can be manipulated in order to understand that the image I saw of a plane entering a building side without losing its shape was faked. The proof of the fakery was the video itself, showing the physically impossible.
If anyone challenged me to explain how a video could be faked, I’d not know the process.
Like Judy Wood’s detractors, my critics would deride me for not being able to explain how it was done in detail. Irrelevant. It clearly was done. The job would be to find out how… It may seem an absurd comparison, on the surface, as most people do know that video can be phonied up.
But that technology is not CLASSIFIED.
DEW science is mostly classified. Dr. Wood’s inability to give the schematics is not relevant, for she has shown that, in principle, it can be done
Further, all Dr. Wood must do to eliminate other possible explanations of the demise of those two towers is to falsify those explanations, that is, to prove that they are NOT ADEQUATE to explain ALL the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
She has done so. There are no cracks in her reasoning.
The whisper soft seismic impact of the towers, compared to what would have happened had the bulk of the materials slammed to the ground, is all that is needed to prove that most of the building material disintegrated before it hit the ground. If the seismic evidence is valid, end of story!
But this technical evidence is supported by other types of technical evidence, and also by eyewitness accounts. Many eyewitness accounts. It is simply not plausible that all those people, most of them emergency workers, are liars, actors.
The existence of real eyewitnesses is one very big reason why the government would not want to see a genuine investigation proceed, at least not until it’s too late, when all those witnesses are dead.
The physical anomalies of the “collapse” were witnessed by real people on the scene, as well as by technological recording devices and by satellite imagery.
Amassing all the evidence that it was humanly possible to obtain, including all types of evidence, and putting enough of it in one large book (pathetic that someone should criticise a book for its virtue of containing sufficient telling material), correlating it, and walking readers through detailed explanations of the physical meaning of it all…she has done that.
After the 911 event, I was horrified that there was not mass outcry from scientists, engineers, academics in the relevant fields, against the obvious trickery.
Dr. Wood is the only one who cared to examine ALL the available evidence, present her findings, and suggest that cutting edge technology was used…technology that if used for peaceful purposes could free mankind from much drudgery and deprivation.
Does such technology exist? Yes, it does. But don’t believe me. Read the book. Carefully. Pay attention until you understand what she is saying. I realize that most people are not educated in the sciences and don’t know much more math than basic arithmetic, but it will be worth your efforts to understand. I promise.
Another detractor actually complained that no one could provide him with an explanation of Dr. Wood’s research in a few sentences. It reminds me of people asking me to “explain physics” to them. I’d just stare. I won’t say exactly what I would be thinking, but uncomplimentary notions like “moron” might have been involved. Or I’d ask if they had a few years. I might well have said, “Physics is understanding the physical universe in terms of electric charge,” and they’d have known exactly as much physics as before, that is, none.
The explanations take a little more time than that.
Happily, you don’t need a few years to follow Dr. Wood’s presentation, but you do need to patiently follow the text, and if you are woefully backward in scientific education, you might need to look up the basics in outside sources.
The same detractor referred to “proof” of thermite as the agent of destruction, or perhaps he was more careful and only mentioned “proof” of the presence of thermitic materials. Well, hell…those very materials would be present, just as found, due to the composition of the towers. This is why, Dr. Wood has said that finding those materials at the scene, and jumping to the conclusion that thermite/thermate destroyed the buildings is not scientific. She points out, absolutely correctly, and hilariously I might add, that it is like assuming that blood killed a murder victim, just because the body is lying in a pool of blood. The person who thinks that the presence of those materials is sufficient evidence to constitute “proof” that weaponized thermite accomplished the destruction of the buildings is in need of remedial science courses, starting with the scientific method.
I am not saying that no thermite was used anywhere in the building, but I am agreeing with Dr. Wood that if it was, it is irrelevant to the overall demise of the buildings. A thermite driven collapse would not have produced molecular dissociation, and it would have left a very large signature at seismic recording stations. Thermite can be eliminated as the primary murder weapon.
A flea may bite a man, but if he’s been gored by a rhino, it won’t matter.
The Erin thing: a hurricane has a field associated with it, and the field spreads far past the apparent storm edge. On 911, Erin’s field was over New York City.
What is a directed energy weapon? How does it work, in principle? via the interference of electromagnetic energy fields.
The timing of Erin’s motion, and its unprecedented stationary hold, are suggestive of the storm having had a role in the process that was used. Is this possible? remember what I said about real science being classified. My opinion as a near scientist by education and by past association with the big boys is, yes.
Another critic asserted was that this “new” technology would not be used, because all the kinks might not have been worked out. It would be unreliable. There were several incidents, which Dr. Wood did not mention in her book, and perhaps she is not even aware of them, that may well qualify as tests of the DEW used. There are records of odd collapses of buildings and of other structures prior to 911…and no, I don’t have the links with me, and I’m not inclined to look them up. I read. I remember. And I understood what I was reading…take it or leave it, and do your own research. In any case, what is “new” to the public may well be “perfected” to the servants of death.
Images: if I were to fake ALL the images of 911 (one fake video, or a few, cannot rule out all imagery taken on the day…) I’d have made the “collapse” at least look like a real collapse. With the glaring error of a free fall descent — apparently, the perp’s correctly realized that most Americans were too ignorant to notice or to understand what that meant — a “smoke screen” to hide an actual conventional controlled collapse is a moot point. After all, mythical collapse by fire and plane damage would have been more believable, had the video shown a crashing down of building parts…and most people would have bought any dumb story to cover the squibs and explosions. If they could swallow that plane into the side of the building and the free fall destruction…. no worries. Again, there would have been a seismic signature indicating the mass that had crashed. And witnesses would have heard the crashing, even had they not seen it. No one did. The demise of the buildings was quiet. But Dr. Wood presents that testimony from witnesses.
And if I were the 911 orchestrator (I can’t call a destroyer a “master mind” — you have to create value for that, not steal or kill), coordinating an event to promote wars to a dumbed down, gullible, frightened populace, I do not think I’d worry over a few thousand deaths on the day. I’m sure I’d consider myself so untouchable, so above law, that I wouldn’t worry about people discovering me and being able to do a single thing about it…in any case, that would only give me, my cabal, an excuse to turn the weapons on them under some other false pretense, a bonus I’d enjoy, “as I lick the boots of death, born out of fear…” (paraphrase of Jethro Tull)
You can’t reason about insane perverts as if they cared about the potential consequences of being caught out in crimes. Lawsuits? my…never mind. They like the edge, because it proves they are clever compared to everyone else…or so they imagine. Sneaky, deceptive, clever with huge warps and cracks, unwise and all ego, is what I’d expect from the originator of the crime. A control freak and a coward, but far too arrogant to play it safe all the time.
Or maybe that free fall time wasn’t so dumb? Maybe it would give someone, someday, an out … “We didn’t kill any Americans…See, it was ALL fake. Well, we killed your young people by getting them to go into wars where they murdered other people in their own homes in other lands…but hey, we Americans all love a good war, right?” Grin and wink.
Nah.
You can’t have it both ways. That free fall was stupid. How can the orchestrator be both stupid and brilliant?
Thing is, the FREE FALL time was UNAVOIDABLE if DEW was used. It could have been avoided entirely if thermite did the deed.
At last, Dr. Wood is the only researcher who seems to have a grain of humility, in that she does invite criticism and relevant input, including correction, of the content of her work (not of her person …which is all she ever gets). I bought the book after years of delay, knowing that “this woman is on the right track,” from looking at her web site and hearing a great interview with her (obviously not the one others here have mentioned. Maybe Dr. Wood lost her composure when attacked rather than interviewed in that one? Some people do, in a situation like that. And some are too kind to anticipate a back stabbing when asked to appear to speak.)
In any case, I’ve seen her criticized for her lack of articulation…well, most scientists write better than they speak. (I can write rings around a false argument from another, but I wouldn’t want to do a verbal debate; I’d likely trip over my own tongue.) So, that’s nothing. And I’ve seen a criticism of her associates…well, if in fact any of those named associates are shady, don’t you know, one of the things the cabal will do is to send companions, colleagues, ostensibly on the side of truth and justice, to monitor an honest researcher, and later to be used as a “discredit by association” tool. It’s false argument. tOne critic even said that he need not read her book, because he didn’t approve of her! How babyish can you get?
Honest people can make a few mistakes. Liars or fools may inadvertently give out solid information and clues. So, all in all, it’s best to give every one a hearing , and then think about what they’ve said, not who said it…putting it together so that it makes sense. that is how science would do it.
Mostly, name-calling has been used to falsely discredit Dr. Wood. Or is it labeling when you call someone crazy, and everybody is supposed to be afraid to read her book because that means they are stupid or crazy too?
I was on-line, days after 911, posting in the International section of the Guardian Unlimited forum, where there were many intelligent participants at the time (not so now). I was posting that the “collapse” story was a lie, and when people would not understand the physical impossibility of it, I posted all the other information I could find that indicated a false flag. I’d even seen the official record of the Payne Stewart interception before it was altered to make it seem like it took longer than a few minutes for the interceptors to reach the plane. I wondered why the joint chiefs had found that plane so interesting that they’d followed its progress, and the interceptor handoffs, until the plane downed; but on 911 they were doing exactly what? smoking in the can for an hour and a half? I covered it all: false passports, phony hijackers who couldn’t even fly, no plane at the Pentagon, silly 3-stooges style planted “evidence” that implicated Muslims, like the Koran in the car, and an indestructible passport. “Whoever writes this stuff,” I thought, “is not bright or talented at all. No wonder they can’t write for the real movies.” I surmised that the Pennsylvania plane had been intended to hit the WTC7, as a cover for its demise, but it was shot down … but it was only surmise. I did that for months, now and again coming in with something new I’d found, quoting many good researchers, but none of them had confronted the PHYSICAL evidence of what had happened.
I came to believe that when people want to know, they will know. Until then, nothing will penetrate the denial.
One of Dr. Wood’s critics accused you of blathering endlessly, or something like that, Sr. I have blathered endlessly too. But so did that critic. I’m only doing it once.That’s my excuse. He/she blathered on in multiple posts. So, it’s fair trade.
I thank Dr. Wood for her work. It is about the physical evidence on site. Eyewitness accounts from the site. Finally. The least I could do was to buy/read her book, even though a wage slave thinks a lot of $40.
In the end, her work may make all the difference. I pray that it does.
Simon Shack : Zany piece from Yvonne
Dear Craig,
Let me just share with you my personal take regarding what is going on here on your blog. You may have appreciated (or not) my contributions in the last week or so – yet, I can’t see that you have responded in any way to my humble contributions.
Your prompt response to the zany piece of “Yvonne” (promoting Judy Wood’s “dustification” theories – based on fake video imagery) tells me that something isn’t quite right over here. I have appreciated to this day your seemingly honest, intellectual openness to the many so-called “9/11 conspiracy-theories”. This openness is laudable – and I thank you again for letting me lay out and illustrate my own – here on your personal blog. However, since I have very valid reasons for dissociating my research from that of Judy Wood’s (which clearly attempts to provide a “scientific explanation” to the absurd, computer-animated WTC collapse imagery) – I will now gracefully bow out of this place.
Thanks for having me! – as they say on TV… :O)
Señor El Once (via Craig McKee) : Sixth Attempt: Distrust but Verify
Note to Mr. McKee and the readers: This is the [fourth] [fifth] sixth time I've attempted to post this response to this thread. This is no condemnation of Mr. McKee. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that my [three] six attempts at posting were intercepted. Normally when a posting is in the process of being successful, I'll see it (due to cookies) in my browser on my local version of the blog as it will appear after Mr. McKee approves but the distinction "Awaiting Moderation." I didn't get this view. On my second attempt, I immediately got a quasi-dialog box message to the effect: "This seems to be duplicate posting." Ergo, someone got it, received it, recognized it, noted its duplicate status. The third attempt was slightly modified and received neither an "Awaiting Moderation" preview nor notice of duplication. In between the second and third attempts, I posted successfully a response to Mr. HybridRogue1 in the Sanctions on Gallop 9/11 lawsuit..." thread. Mr. McKee assured me off-list that he did not get any of my three attempts. Now if this isn't a sign that NSA Q-Groupies have taken notice because maybe these "zany bat-shit crazy loony insane rabbit-hole" theories from a confessed duped useful idiot might be on the right track. Is this where we cue the music to "The Twilight Zone"?
Message to Dr. (I presume) Yvonne: I agree 100% with what you wrote. Great job! Too bad from my engineering studies, I resemble your comment "many professionals admit they don’t understand much of their own field." I studied physics and calculus: both very trippy and required faith to then quickly apply it in other disciplines.
Message to Mr. Shack follows.
Dear Mr. Shack,
I enjoyed your contributions here very much. They provided insight into helping me overcome obstacles in my thinking and beliefs. I hope that you will continue, because you seem to have the skills to help trim the fat from Dr. Wood's book, maybe by helping us identify the taint in various manipulated images upon which she hints at certain concepts.
You wrote to Mr. McKee:
Your prompt response to the zany piece of “Yvonne” (promoting Judy Wood’s “dustification” theories – based on fake video imagery) tells me that something isn’t quite right over here.
Actually, it is your promptness to "gracefully bow out of this place" based on Ms. Yvonne's posting that "tells me that something isn’t quite right."
Mr. Shack, you are hardly in a position to be labeling anything pertaining to Dr. Wood as "zany." For starters, you haven't read her book, you do not even have her book, and you declined my repeated offers to help you overcome this financial and logistics impediment, supposedly "out of intellectual honesty." You should explain that one, because book reports, reviews, and assessments without the book is both "intellectually dishonest" and "zany."
[My offer expired, and you are on your own to secure a copy. I'll try not to rub your nose in your refusal too frequently. But you can bet that I'm going to continually club your arguments over the head with my copy of her book until you rise to the minimal level required for an informed discussion about it.]
Dustification isn't just a theory, it is reality on 9/11. As others have tried to corner me, we can split hairs over the extent of what was dustified -- certainly all of the concrete and drywall and we'll leave quantities of steel as debate point. The evidence of dustification is visible right from the cover of Dr. Wood's book, an image that you have not proven was a fake. You just make repeated and grandious innuendos: "If I prove one (or n) images were tampered with, then we can't trust any of the images."
To basterize the words of Ronald Reagan: "Distrust but verify."
Your efforts have proven that we shouldn't take the imagery of 9/11 at face value: great. The validity of each image and the extent of possible digital manipulation needs to be assessed individually image-by-image. One-by-one, separate the wheat from the chaf, the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.
I am willing to entertain the notion that Dr. Wood incorporated some images that are tainted. No one can blame her, because she uses images that everyone has and few have disputed. I'm sure once the tainting is brought to her attention, we'll get a heart-felt "I'm sorry" coupled with a "please keep in consideration the images that haven't been proven tainted."
Mr. Shack, do you point out the specific images in her work that have a high probability of being tainted? No. I wrote you off-list with the suggestion of you starting a Dr. Wood thread on your forum with the expressed purpose of trying to find tainted images. I even provided a short list of images to start the hunt for the artifacts of digital manipulation. Your response? Silence.
You write:
[Dr. Wood] clearly attempts to provide a “scientific explanation” to the absurd, computer-animated WTC collapse imagery.
This is an absurd strawman, Mr. Shack, because Dr. Wood's textbook does not have the ability to display animated imagery of any sorts, computer or otherwise.
Dr. Wood's scientific explanation dives into lots of other evidence, but you don't know this because your "intellectual honesty" prevents you from acquiring the book and reading & knowing it for yourself.
Here is something Yvonne wrote that I concur with and that you failed to address:
Images: if I were to fake ALL the images of 911 (one fake video, or a few, cannot rule out all imagery taken on the day... ) I’d have made the “collapse” at least look like a real collapse. With the glaring error of a free fall descent — apparently, the perp’s correctly realized that most Americans were too ignorant to notice or to understand what that meant — a “smoke screen” to hide an actual conventional controlled collapse is a moot point. After all, mythical collapse by fire and plane damage would have been more believable, had the video shown a crashing down of building parts... and most people would have bought any dumb story to cover the squibs and explosions. If they could swallow that plane into the side of the building and the free fall destruction... . no worries. Again, there would have been a seismic signature indicating the mass that had crashed. And witnesses would have heard the crashing, even had they not seen it. No one did. The demise of the buildings was quiet. But Dr. Wood presents that testimony from witnesses.
You can’t have it both ways. That free fall was stupid. How can the orchestrator be both stupid and brilliant?
Thing is, the FREE FALL time was UNAVOIDABLE if DEW was used. It could have been avoided entirely if thermite did the deed.
You, Yvonne, and I are in agreement that WTC collapse imagery is absurd. The reason Yvonne and I think it is absurd stems from it not being in conformance with the laws of physics.
You push the envelope and say that all of the WTC collapse imagery was computer-animated. I say: prove it. And I'll wager that you can't. Because if it was all computer-animated, they could have done it right. They could have made it believable. It would not have been FREE FALL.
Here is a funny bench mark.
Mr. Marquis (of CIT and fly-over fame) takes offense when the thread touches on digital manipulation of images (e.g., no planes). Mr. Shack (of no-planes fame) takes offense when the thread touches on Dr. Wood and energy requirements of the destruction. You act as if your work is mutually exclusive.
Far from being mutually exclusive, the reality is that these three areas (fly-over, no-planes, massive energy) are overlapping and supportive of one another. Together, they provide the big picture and understanding.
And when one area (A) makes dismissive comments of another area (B) unsubstantiated with specifics, it backfires.
++++++
For those interested, below are links to the initial set of images used by Dr. Wood that I would like validated as being real or tainted. Some of the images are duplicate; I've provided multiple destinations when Dr. Wood's website gave such.
One of the tasks for the researches is to determine if these images are truly source, or if other images available from different repositories are. Once the source of the image is obtained, then of course the hunt for the artifacts of digital manipulation begins.
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/5139%7e0.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/indexpics/tn5139%7e0.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/5139_0_s.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/AftermathReuters10_s.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/moltensteelclose0yl_s.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/hotslagil3.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4509/hotslagil3.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/September_13_from_space.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/hpics/010911_1867.jpeg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image190.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/010913_5316.jpg
Señor El Once : Distrust but Verify
{This was posted above on February 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm. I've asked Mr. McKee to delete that posting, so that this can be a new top-level bottom-of-thread posting.}
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I agree with your statements:
Indeed, the Razor can be more or less abused. However there is the point of complexity, and that as it applies to the proposition that all of the visual imagery from 9/11 is digitally manufactured. The idea that this is even remotely possible is staggering. We are not simply dealing with TV footage, we are dealing with footage from people from many angles and POVs that never appeared on TV, but were subsequently put up on You Tube. In other words we are dealing with unmanageable complexity.
Whereas Mr. Shack provides us many nuggets of truth in his efforts, you have stumbled upon some dross of disinformation in his postings, because it is he himself who wants us -- nudges us, urges us -- to extrapolate and hold up all 9/11 footage and imagery as products of digital manipulation and thus unreal. In particular, his zany responses seem to target Dr. Wood, because he seems to
not want
to review Dr. Wood's textbook "out of intellectual honesty"; he implies that because her textbook stands upon the shoulders of tainted images, it follows the computer principle of "garbage in / garbage out."I take the paraphrased "Ronald Ray-Gun" (pun intended) approach: "Distrust but verify."
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
And I would add that it is ludicrous to propose that such digital fakery would be done which proves the towers exploded – rather than ‘collapsing’ into their footsteps and the mantra went. If such footage was computer generated it would have made more sense to show a ‘gravity’ driven collapse – which these images clearly do not.
Agreed. This ends up being another area where potentially the dross of disinformation in Mr. Shack's work is visible.
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
There is the point of whether Shack actually proves anything with his side by side expositions. You feel that he does. I don’t see that. He claims never to have been debunked. Perhaps those who might have the expertise to do so see it as so ludicrous that it is a waste of time to take it serious enough to do so {?}
No. Allow me to clarify. I feel Mr. Shack has made a convincing case that some level of digital manipulation occurred. It is highly conceivable FOR THE INSTANCES HE DOCUMENTED. I do NOT believe Mr. Shack has by any means taken all imagery off of the table as being fake products; he's simply raised the "distrust but verify" flag.
As was stated in the "When did they know?" thread [that Mr. McKee had to post for me, because the blog was inexplicably not letting me post anything], if all of the footage are products of digital faking, they should have at least gotten the collapse footage closer to Hollywood standards for being real and in agreement with Newtonian physics.
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
As far as “energy requirements” Dr. Wood has a problem with such as well. Where does the energy come from that she claims drives this unknown weapon? See the article by Dr. Jenkins on the energy requirements for such a weapon, and the problems of hiding the other atmospheric effects that would need be present in their use.
Thank you for that excellent segue, Mr. HybridRogue1, and such an accurate & keen eye you have for Dr. Wood's problem. It should be pointed out that Dr. Wood's textbook only hints at what the energy sources could be. One option was free energy from Hurricane Erin. Another option could be cold fusion nuclear "generators" (my term) which then supposedly yields Hutchison side-effects. I have high hopes that Mr. Shack's crack team will view some of those side-effect images (e.g., fireman stepping right over a localized fire on one end of some aluminum cladding that miraculously wasn't burning any of the paper that littered the street) and discover the artifacts of digial manipulation.
My speculation was milli-nuclear generators powered the DEW devices due to the hot-spots that satillites captured and burned for many weeks.
Always bringing out the Dr. Jenkins, eh, Mr. HybridRogue1. (Do you have a link?) How much of Dr. Jenkin's old article even applies to Dr. Wood's new textbook? When Dr. Jenkins writes a book review -- chapter by chapter -- of Dr. Wood's textbook, then maybe he'll be applicable. I won't dwell on the problems that Dr. Jenkins himself has, like the irony of his research and employers being in the very area he tries to debunk Dr. Wood on.
What's it going to take to get you on the same page to be reading Dr. Wood's actual words from her textbook and then determining their validity and applicability?
Señor El Once : flirt with the dustification of steel
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Ho-hum.
Evidently you missed a key passage right after the title of Dr. Jenkins' paper: "(Updated 4/12/07)". The "07" does not stop at "007" but goes to a full "2007". When did Dr. Wood publish her book? Around Valentine's Day 2011 is when I got my copy. See any problems with using something from "2007" to challenge something published in late "2010"?
Dustification of steel? You and I have already been through this.
I'm only married to the dustification of content (e.g., concrete, drywall, humans). I just flirt with the dustification of steel. If you want to take her out (double-meanings intended), this duped useful idiot won't contest too strongly as I go back to straddling the fence on the subject until definitive, convincing evidence either way is laid out.
I absolutely love Mr. Shack's zany technique of pitting two (or more) disinformation sources against one another and having their inconsistencies knock each other out.
So here you have Dr. Jenkin's calculating the amount of energy required to get steel to vaporize (which in my laziness I won't double-check and will assume is correct for the purposes of this discussion):
... the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas,
respectively. If you consider that this amount of energy, J 14 5.7 ×10 , which is only 50% of the energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 5.7×1013 Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc.
The first glaring misdirection in Dr. Jenkin's skew is highlighted, but I will spell it out: his calculations are for "all the steel." As you so eloquently pointed out somewhere in our discussions, seemingly a huge portion of the towers steel was accounted for at ground zero. If you want to push the envelope by saying "most of the steel was accounted for", it leaves wiggle room for some of the steel or even a small fraction of the steel being turned to vapor, which then reduces significantly Dr. Jenkins' pie-in-the-sky energy estimates.
A second Dr. Jenkins' purposeful misframing is in limiting the discussion to solid-to-liquid-to-gas. You see, plasma is a fourth state of material, and when it reaches that state, all bets are off with regards to energy input & output and self-sustaining side-effects and all sorts of kooky things.
Enter Simon Shack who proves an instance (or two) of images of the destruction pile being tainted. Does the tainting add steel to the images?
Shame on me for following any of your wild-goose chases, Mr. HybridRogue1, because Dr. Jenkins' old (2007) paper does not consider the new Tesla-ian probability that vast quantities of free energy could be tapped into. Of course, as conspiracies go, the energy companies of the world would not be happy with this prospect, because it turns off the tap to their cash machines run on oil, natural gas, nuclear, etc. Yet another reason they were motivated into starting a distracting war over dwindling oil reserves.
Unfortunately for you, Mr. HybridRogue1, you will be unable to address any of the bad-shit crazy stuff above, because...
neither Dr. Jenkins
nor Dr. Jones
nor Mr. Chandler
nor Mr. Gage
nor Mr. Cole
nor Mr. Wright (of 9/11 Blogger)
nor Mr. Shack
nor Mr. HybridRogue1
goes there in any recent publication to address a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g in Dr. Wood's textbook: not the ugly, not the bad, and certainly no acknowledgement of the good. ... This is a sign. Pay attention.
+++++
Oh, and here is helpful formatting tip. You can insert some basic HTML into your posting to add clarity, like:
<blockquote>{some really long passage you're copying-and-pasting from elsewhere}</blockquote>
which then gets posted as:
{some really long passage you're copying-and-pasting from elsewhere}
Also, formatting like <a href="http://someUrl.org">a link to a something</a> can help you insert a hyperlink, like one to Dr. Jenkins.
Señor El Once : the sand you kick up
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Fuey on the sand you kick up in readers' eyes.
Dr. Wood's textbook has X number of chapters and was published in 2010.
From your grand & high seat of total ignorance as to what is contained in Dr. Wood's book -- because you haven't read it, don't have it, won't get it --, you foist upon us an unlinked PDF by Dr. Jenkins from 2007 that doesn't address completely even 1 of Dr. Wood's X number of chapters and that Dr. Jenkins had no way of knowing (in 2007) would be there (in 2010).
If Dr. Jenkins is so right on the money, where is his follow-up? Where is any good doctors follow-up to the good, the bad, and the ugly in Dr. Wood's textbook? N-o-w-h-e-r-e.
You know the height at which the bar for discussion is set at, Mr. HybridRogue1.
Get on the same page literally, Mr. HybridRogue1, regardless of whether or not you agree with what is printed on the page, otherwise you & your postings take on the aura of fanciful fantasies spun by... "Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention" (e.g., your past employers.)
Regarding using the "<blockquote>" HTML tag, it would help the readability of your postings enormously in terms of who actually wrote what. Putting a tiny tilde (~) with attribution at the end of a mondo quote doesn't do it for me.
Señor El Once : I flag your consistency and obstinance in refusing to get yourself informed
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I put my money where my mouth is, both in acquiring a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook for myself, but also in giving it to leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I've done that because I know the noise and chatter is so loud regarding Dr. Wood, most would not purchase the book on their own to see for themselves.
The cost of the gift came out of my own pocket. I do not know nor do I have any affiliation with Dr. Wood. I secured their permission before purchasing anything and having the distribution website send it out.
Your pen-name is a good reflection of your antiques here. You are a hybrid. Sometimes you make really cool and agreeable statements that would make you a rogue from the OCT position. Sometimes your rock-solid refusal to objectively review that which you obviously don't know (September Clues, Dr. Wood's book) makes you a rogue from the 9/11 Truth position.
Arguing from a position of admitted ignorance is not strength.
I haven't extended you an offer of Dr. Wood's textbook, because your past employment indicates that you could well afford the book and -- despite your stellar writing -- I don't consider you a leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
You commend my persistence in pushing Dr. Wood's book.
I flag your consistency and obstinance in refusing to get yourself informed while you parade around flaunting all that you don't know. You give little indication that anything presented could change your mind. FLAG!!!
Your rogue and hybrid nature gives you a foot in both the OCT and 9/11 truth camps.
"Ye cannot serve two masters."
I am finding the flaws in Dr. Wood's textbook. Alas, they are neither frequent nor monumental so as to destroy her work. Her textbook will stand the test of time, even for what few elements that someone might convince me were in grevious error.
You won't be able to do it with dated Jenkins malframing of back-of-envelope energy calculations, that's for sure. Physics is indeed physics, unchanged from 2007 to 2010. But as another strawman of yours that I'll torch, the supposed energy calculations being massive for the "dustification of steel" girlfriend [a blow-up doll for you, because I date "dustification of content"] doesn't preclude that the energy source and mechanisms weren't out-of-this-world unique and powerful & manly enough for the task.
Meanwhile, the height of the bar was set with respect to what should be reviewed. You try to duck under... again and again. And that's when I use Dr. Wood's textbook to clobber you and your arguments on the noggin. [Mr. Chandler commends it for its big, heavy size and extravagent use of color... but not much else... And also from a position of not having read it despite the UPS guy handing it to him.] Not my desire to use the book in this manner, but certainly fun. I would prefer some assistance in mining, refining, and re-purposing the nuggets of truth from these various sources that are often framed as disinformation.
You wrote to Mr. Winterrowd a quote from Dr. Jenkins:
Most of the debris from all the collapsed buildings in the WTC complex, excluding Building 7, collapsed within the sublevels...
Not so fast. Dr. Wood's points out how only four of the seven subway lines were obstructed and shows pictures of personnel exploring the shops under the WTC plaza.
Dr. Jenkins never calculated the energy required to achieve his compression ratio. The reason he didn't, is because Dr. Jenkins is OCT and believes gravity alone had the energy to do this. Or maybe I error on this point and don't know what Dr. Jenkins proposes accounted for the destruction.
Your re-hashing of super-duper nano-thermite lacks the math (and experimentation) from his PhD champions (or you) to prove that it could pulverize content ~AND~ result in hotspots that burn for days. But park us at super-duper nano-thermite you must as a Rogue Hybrid with a foot in two camps to keep the public from realizing how deep the deception and betrayal, and that the massive energy requirements necessitates looking elsewhere for the energy source.
Man up, Mr. HybridRogue1, and get yourself a book to read. Otherwise, the master you serve becomes apparent, and it ain't necessarily Truth with a capital "T".
Señor El Once : ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
We probably both fall into the category of being ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives.
Although I disbelieve that super duper nano-thermite has the explosive potential to pulverize the contents of the tower as observed on 9/11, quite possibly you'll find examples and not just hearsay that it is so. Doesn't matter, because the more effort you put into proving the explosive energy of nano-thermite, the more you prove that super duper nano-thermite could not account for the hot-spots that burned for many weeks.
Physics in this matter says that you can't have it both ways. You can't have nano-thermite accounting for pulverization ~AND~ the many week duration of hot-spots.
You wrote:
[T]hese materials found in the surface dust were ‘unreacted’…if there are unreacted incendiaries in the surface materials, it is more than reasonable to presume they are in the pile and buried with the debris – this being the case there is a source for a continued burn, which most certainly would account for the furnace effects reported by witnesses.
To put it nicely, you are talking through your hat and exposing your weak pedigree in the area of science, math, and physics.
From Dr. Ed Ward:
The velocity of instantaneous combustion has been measured for most explosives and is referred to as the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities of high explosives range from approximately 3,300 feet per second (fps) to over 29,900 fps. To bring this speed down to our terms - If we took a five-mile length of garden hose and filled it in with a high explosive and then detonated one end of the hose, it would only take one second for the chemical reaction to reach the other end.
http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm
What is the burn-rate or detonation velocity of super duper nano-thermite? I don't know.
What I do know is that hot-spots burned for many weeks (more than 4.) 4 weeks = 28 days = 392 hours = 23,520 minutes = 1,411,200 seconds. For the sake of discussion, let's contemplate one hot-spot, use a slow burn rate of 3,300 feet per second, and just 4 weeks. Thus, for this imaginary explosive we would need a garden hose 4,656,960,000 feet long (or approximately 882,000 miles). You can tweak the numbers to make them specific to nano-thermite with the energy to pulverize content, but to account for the duration of the hot-spot you'll get a garden hose even longer that 882,000 miles.
Ignoring the weight of the hose itself and assuming 1/2 diameter hose, how much explosive material in kilograms would be in such? Massive amounts.
Not just massive amounts. Unreasonable amounts.
Have the nuclear hot-spots in Japan as a result of the 2011-03-11 action (earthquake, tidal wave, etc.) been put out? I don't know. What I do know is that nuclear hot-spots comes closer to answering the observed outcome of 9/11 than super duper nano-thermite.
Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1, other energy sources and destructive mechanisms for 9/11 much be sought.
You parking yourself and the discussion at nano-thermite? Expose either your ignorance or your agenda.
The same might be said about your attacks on video fakery. I don't know what you did at Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention, but given that they earn their profits by making us believe fake things are real on the telly -- just like we're saying much of 9/11 were fake things that looked almost real on the telly --, then...
Kudos, Mr. HybridRogue1. I consider you on the A-team of the NSA Q-Group, which is why, as you say, I'll never persuade you on this topic.
Señor El Once : Enough
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
I have read enough of Judy Wood at her blog site, and in other papers that I have come to the conclusion that she is a fruitloop.
The keyword in the above is "enough." "Enough" is not "all" and probably isn't "most" either in this case. For a thinking man who comes to his own conclusions, do you think your skimming of her web efforts might have left out a corner or two that might tie everything together and lead to a different conclusion?
I don't know. Call that a data point that aligns very nicely with your consistent and repugnant ability to give book reports and in-depth reviews on a textbook you have probably never held in your hands for enough minutes to read its introduction word-for-word. The trend line that passes through these two points also happens to intersect a third data point, which is the "fruitloop" ad hominem word used to summarize your conclusions. You are entitled to your opinion.
That you are now asserting that she is suddenly a real scientist and has mended all of her past errors doesn’t wash.
Dr. Wood has always been a real scientist, and she never really departed from being such. It was because she was asking real scientific questions and demanding real scientific answers about the events of 9/11 that this all came about. I'm sure she would have been happy for other real scientists to have been asking these relevant real scientific questions.
So much for your mangled framing and attempts to put words in my mouth.
I think for myself and come to my own conclusions. Two of these are; Wood is bunk, the second is the Shack is bunk.
You refused Mr. Shack's invitation to explore his rabbit holes. You have a high & mighty seat far above a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook from which you make proclamations as to the bunkiness of each chapter, one-by-one.
Real people, Mr. HybridRogue1, recognize when their initial conclusions are clearly based on incomplete information and might think to at least delay their final assessment until the missing information is reviewed. Your verbose actions from the weak position of ignorance is the true bunk.
Until such time as you can make a coherent argument for Wood, other than “You have to see it to believe it”, you will find me less than hospitable to your preacings.
I enjoy how you mangle the framing.
How about you make a coherent argument for super duper nano-thermite that explains with physics and math how it can achieve both pulverization of content as well as the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without necessitating unreasonable massive quantities. Feel free to copy from the works of Dr. Jones and company, if you can find what they published on the matter is greater than the zero.
Another energy source and destructive mechanism for the WTC ground zero must be sought. Thus, the coherent argument for Dr. Wood that I make is that she has published a large, "heavy, high-quality textbook with extravagant use of color" [according to Mr. David Chandler] that introduces evidence and concepts for thinking readers to come to their own conclusions regarding alternative energy sources and destructive mechanisms.
{Full Disclosure: Dr. Wood does not definitively tie together evidence and concepts as being applicable on 9/11. A strength of her textbook is that chapters stand more or less on their own; the concepts of a given chapter can be deemed inapplicable without discounting neighboring chapters. My own beliefs about the destructive mechanisms and energy sources deviate from concepts presented by Dr. Wood, but stand on her work's shoulders and thus remain applicable to get readers thinking outside-the-box.}
Señor El Once : temper your enthusiam
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I caution you to temper your enthusiam for all evidence and concepts brought to light by Dr. Wood's textbook. Not all of them are applicable to 9/11. And Mr. Shack has unlocked how some potential deceit may have been introduced into that wonderful book in the form of tainted pictures. Some of it may also be in how the damage was interpretted. Certainly, a tainted image or two could lead one to the wrong conclusion, or lead you away from a different but worthy conclusion.
Case in point, you wrote:
How would any of the before mentioned make vehicle engine blocks disappear leaving gas tanks intact? Everything that goes boom is not a bomb. Everything that glows is not hot. There was no evidence of high heat. There was no “debris pile” there was a small debris field.
Dr. Wood has in the past presented images of the front of a fire engine that seemed to have a melted engine block and made this strong inference. I discovered that this older style fire engine had its engine set back such that access was obtained through the cab. So the reason the picture shows a wilted grill and front-end with no engine in sight is because the motor is much further back from the front bumper and you can't see it. Just correcting the record on this image; other melted engines and anomalous burn patterns remain.
A place where I'm deviating from Dr. Wood is her chapter on there being no evidence of high heat. One of her valid arguments was the hydraulics of the escavation equipment failing if such high heat existed, like in the one of the crane pulling out a piece of seemingly glowing hot material.
With absolutely no substantiation to back me up (yet) I suspect that this particular image may be discovered in the category of being tainted. So it is ironic that you would bring up the tidbit from Dr. Wood: "Everything that glows is not hot." This is especially true when thinking digital special effects and how to taint an image.
Although I am dinging an aspect or two from Dr. Wood's work, I think of it more as "correcting the record" ~or~ "showing how this thinking reader is coming to his own conclusions." Dr. Wood's work are the shoulders I stand on.
The rubble pile had hot-spots that burned for many weeks at high temperatures. I believe this more closely resembles unspent but fizzling nuclear material. That doesn't have to mean that the destructive mechanisms were milli-nuclear bombs (exclusively or at all). It could have been a milli-nuclear generator powering something else, like a DEW mounted to the infrastructure of the towers and later became famously known as "the spire." Let us not forget that radiation was measured, and the good Dr. Jones had to try to explain it away.
A scene from the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian" had Brian being chased by the multitude who mistook him for being one of their contemporaries, Jesus H. Christ. Brian loses a sandal and stumbles into a gord seller's stand. The rabid followers pick up his sandal and say: "Look! The Sandal that he wore. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the Sandal." But another group points to the gord that Brian stumbled into. "Look! The gord that he touched. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the gord" "No, the Sandal! Follow the Sandal!" "No, follow the gord!" "No, the Sandal!" "No, the Gord!"
Mr. Goldstein, let us not be like these all too familiar religious zealots when discussing 9/11 and limiting ourselves to one destructive mechanism. The joke is probably on us that they used all mechanisms that anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement ever made a half-hearted case for. They foist purposely mutually exclusive suggestions at us: "It was spire-based DEW!" "It was milli-nuclear devices!" "It was super duper nano-thermite!" "It was space-based DEW!" "It was conventional explosives!" "No, sheeple! It was all of the above [... to some meaure, certainly when talking the WTC complex as a whole]!"
However, of the above, 9/11 being a nuclear event in any way is the reason the OCT PR is so fervent in its misguiding efforts. Dr. Wood's textbook rightfully questions the energy requirements of pulverization, and thus gives us one of many nuggets of truth.
Señor El Once : evidence of high heat
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
Our postings may have crossed in the moderating queue. You write:
There was no evidence of high heat.
Be more specific. Certainly, high heat wasn't everywhere. But the hot-spots were hot, and testimony of those working ground zero indicate the WTC complex remains being noticably a few degrees hotter than other areas of the city.
You get this "no evidence of high heat" from Dr. Wood's book, right? Well I believe this is one area that she got wrong. I won't speculate whether it was purposeful or not, but if it was purposeful, it could have been forced, as in: "You want to publish your book and live, Dr. Wood? Then you will insert this dross fleck of disinformation about [... X?...] and here's a tainted image already used previously by Dr. Jones to help. Present whatever you want for evidence, but lead them away from anything nuclear."
I refer you to my February 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm
posting above.
Satillite infrared images show hot spots: Figure 277(a) shows thermal hot spots from 9/16/2001. Can Figure 277(b) from 9/23/2001 that doesn't show hot spots be trusted? It wasn't announced until December by the fire department that all 9/11 hot spots were put out. Simon Shack has me "distrusting but verifying" all imagery. Hope he can help!
Figure 278(b) shows West Street flooded from a broken water main. Dr. Wood concludes correctly that if there had been hot spots and a flooded street like this, this puddle would have resulted in steam to cook the firemen. Thanks to Simon Shack, I question the veracity of this image and speculate without substantiation (yet) that this image may have been tainted. Wouldn't surprise me if most of the scene was digitally enhanced. (Mr. Simon Shack?)
... And now that I study this book more closely...
Figures 288(a) and (b) of the pile shows the smoke trails rising from fizzling hot spots. They could also be faked.
I consider Figures 272, 273, and 275 as candidates for tainting. (Mr. Simon Shack?)
Firemen and other first responders have testified to hot spots.
First responder ailments mirror those of survivors of Hiroshima.
This doesn't take down the body of work for Dr. Wood. It helps us mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.
I think the hot spots were nuclear fizzling hot, and the general ground zero was several degrees warmer than other areas of the city.
Señor El Once : burn rates of any type of explosive equates to massive quantities
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1, you wrote mistakenly:
You make one very important mistake in the argument you just put forward and that is that only one type of explosive is being posited as what was detonated for the the destruction of the the towers.
Quite the opposite, Mr. HybridRogue1. The mistake is being made by you on many levels, because I do not put forth "one type of explosive". They could have used every chemical explosive known to man, and some that weren't public knowledge, for all I know or care but could well believe. The point is that slow burn rates or fast burn rates, explosives of even the nano-thermite varieties that you champion cannot account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.
Thus your argument against unreacted thermite being in the pile is rebuffed.
Strawman alert! I make no argument against unreacted thermite. It was there; Dr. Jones found it.
The problem is that he did not find it sufficient mass quantities that could account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.
Something else like -- oh, I don't know -- unspent but fizzling nuclear material might make more sense in accounting for it.
I find the theory of explosive demolition the most compelling. It is as simple as that. These other issues, such as ‘no planes’, ‘no real photo evidence’, ‘DEW’, etc. are side issues to me.
What insults us, Mr. HybridRogue1, is when you make "side issues" the main course to disabuse readers of. You repeatedly attack the evidence to make such views compelling... from your admitted position of being purposely ignorant on the matter and not likely to take the human footsteps to improve it (e.g., explore September Clues, read Dr. Wood's textbook).
Señor El Once : Oh ye of science-challenged thinking and purposeful misframing!
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
But, considering your question of a continued burn in the pile for 4 weeks. The same problem you pose for the thermate hypothesis applies equally to this energy beam hypothesis. How is this energy continually pumped into the pile? Are we to suppose the device you posit is continuing to beam the pile all this time?
Oh ye of science-challenged thinking and purposeful misframing!
The destructive-edge mechanism (DEW) may not have been co-located with its milli-nuclear energy generator. Once the DEW device had served its purpose in radiating many rows above and below its installation level, it was vaporized... maybe by nano-thermite, maybe by the next device in the destruction sequence, maybe by a clean-up milli-nuke. Still, the milli-nuclear energy generated remained, and even trying to nano-thermite burn or milli-nuke its casing would leave unspent but fizzling nuclear material.
Señor El Once : slow burn rates or fast burn rates
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I wrote:
The point is that slow burn rates or fast burn rates, explosives of even the nano-thermite varieties that you champion cannot account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.
You responded:
This is an unsupported position Mr. Once.
Nonsense, Mr. HybridRogue1. I do make lots of unsubstantiated speculation, but with regards to the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots, I'm just going by the evidence and math. It is entirely substantiated by anyone who remembers the algebra associated with high school chemistry.
If you don’t know the DURATION of a slower burning incendiary, you cannot posit what time frame these materials would burn for.
Nonsense again, Mr. HybridRogue1. The burn rates for fast and slow incendiaries was given plus or minus. I chose the slowest burn rate just to provide a worst case scenario. You suggest that nano-thermite is even more of a pulverizing fast burning force.
Tsk, tsk. You can't brush off so quickly how the math at a slow burn rate already suggests a totally unreasonably massively huge beyond measure quantity of said incindiary material. And when the actual burn rate of super duper nano-thermite (or any combination of thermitic materials) -- being much faster -- is plugged in, results in quantities much larger than that to account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.
An energy source for the hot-spots must be found that isn't thermite, mate.
Nuclear. Shock-&-awe, baby! Nuclear.
Señor El Once : wrongly oriented criticisms
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Have you examined these “wrongly oriented criticisms”?
I have. Have you examined the criticisms of Dr. Jones and nano-thermite?
And I understand both why criticisms were wrongly oriented and why valid issues with her work persist. I do not proclaim her work to be perfect.
Here's what you don't understand, dude.
To the degree that Dr. Wood is a dud, so is Dr. Jones, so is Mr. Gage, so is Mr. Chandler, so is Simon Shack, so is the CIT gang, ...
Which is why I've been stating all along that to the best of my ability I mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation -- that will always have to eventually be present in their work (if the govt is good for nothing else.) For all I know, the flakes of disinformation getting inserted into their work may be their "get out of assassination free card", the compromise they made with the devil to secure another day on this planet breathing for themselves and loved ones.
Disinformation is often the best source of (nuggets of) truth with respect to 9/11.
As such, those not willing to explore that which they prejudge to be disinformation will never find the hidden nuggets of truth that make up what the truth of 9/11 is. And consequently, the means with which they duped us in this hoax will be re-deployed again and again, to our demise.
Señor El Once : the boojie woojie high school chemistry
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I grasp probably better than you that "physical evidence for STILL unreacted thermates [existed] in the dust." That was never the issue. The issue was the starting quantities that can be calculated using "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to account for the observed side-effects (pulverization, hot-spots, and unreacted thermite) and that don't add up as being reasonable.
But first, I feel compelled to call you nasty names for this masterful yet totally erroneous yarn and insertion of words into my mouth:
I say that there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries – then you say, “you can’t have it both ways”…WTF? Yes I can, there is the probability of several types of explosives and incendiaries – it is NOT one or the other…mate.
You are the one who has been arguing as if nano-thermite was the end-all cure-all, "no need to go looking any further." Too bad "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves this wrong.
Now you're saying, "there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries." I agree with this probability being true, but not that these several types of explosives and incendiaries account for the observed side-effects as if they -- in combination -- were the primary mechanism and end-all cure-all. "The boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves you wrong... again.
When I said, "you can’t have it both ways", it referred to fast destructive energy of pulverization (fast burn rate) and excessively long burn periods (slow burn rate).
When you review "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" again, you'll see that I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate (3,300 fps) for common explosives and indendiaries used in such demolitions. It is presumed that nano-thermite itself has a burn-rate somewhere in this range:
3,000 fps < nano-thermite burn-rate < 29,000 fps
By chosing the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate, "the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries" is taken into consideration and we end up with a s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario.
"The boojie woojie high school science" had us pack the combination of explosives into a garden hose with a square cross-section to simplify the math. Ignition was started at one end. The question was: How long is the garden hose in order for the fire to burn 4 weeks? Some 882,000 miles.
This estimate is LOW. (a) It was only one hot-spot, not many. (b) Crank up the burn rate to match the average of nano-thermite and any variety of exposives and incendiaries used in the mix, you increase the length of the garden hose by many orders of magnitude.
Because the garden hose was imaginary, we can ignore its weight. We cannot ignore the weight of the massive quantities of nano-thermite (or combination of other materials) that were packed into this volume. This is left as an exercise for you to calculate.
I'll give you a hint: if 882,000 miles of garden hose seems obscenely large and unrealistic to account for just one hot-spot and not even multiple hot-spots, not even the actual many weeks of burning, not even what remained unreacted, and not even what was consumed already in the pulverization, then you will begin to understand how "boojie woojie high school science" disproves the hypothesis that fast-burning nano-thermite (super duper or otherwise or any combination thereof) can be the primary destructive mechanism for everything observed at the WTC.
Let that sink in.
Another energy source for the hot-spots must be sought.
Don't you get it?
Thus the nano-thermite sacred cow gets slaughtered.
So, we need to come up with a new hypothesis to explain side-effects of pulverization and duration of hot-spots.
Dr. Wood does a great job of nudging people to think outside the box. Alas, to prove that I'm not blindly following Dr. Wood and am thinking for myself, I point out a yet another weak area in her textbook. But let me start with Dr. Jones.
Dr. Jones rules out nukes of type X, Y, or Z, because the radiation signature at ground zero didn't match them. Dr. Jones erroneously extrapolated his findings of the destructive mechanism not being "nukes of type X, Y, or Z" to being "no nukes at all." He did not speculate into "nukes of type W" or "nuclear generators" that could account for the anomalous radiation measurements.
Dr. Wood ruled out "deep underground nukes", because of the bathtub not being damaged. Dr. Wood introduces the concept of "separation" of the observable destructive cutting edge from its energy source, which she does with the concepts of free energy and possibly tapping into the energy of Hurricane Erin. She does not go into evidence of radiation measurements that required Dr. Jones' dog-and-pony show on the subject to begin with. Dr. Wood did not entertain the concept of a milli-nuclear generator being the source of energy for whatever was the destructive cutting edge (e.g., DEW). She tries to caste doubt that there were even hot-spots, referring to the images of hydraulic machines picking up glowing pieces of metal, saying "all that glows is not necessarily hot, and the hydraulics would fail if such hot-spots were present."
Enter Mr. Shack, who doesn't want to go into Dr. Wood's work at all, saying that it is based on tainted images. Expanding upon his point, if the image of the hydraulic machine picking up a glowing piece of metal were a faked digital representation (used by both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood), ironically Dr. Wood's statement of "all that glows [in digital imagery] is not necessarily hot" remains truthful, although the efforts to side-line hot-spots is not.
Señor El Once : ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
It was not my intent to be a joker when I linked you between threads within this blog, so I am sorry if I left that impression. I just didn't want to bore the readers of two different threads with the same material that you claim to not having a hard time grasping, yet with really no indication that you do judging from your consistent malframing and skew.
I gave the summary of ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement, recognizing that the vast majority I have no issues with and applaud him for his legacy. My ire is localized. Dr. Jones, more so than any other individual or group outside or inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, takes speculation about 9/11 being a nuclear event out of the picture and fills its vacuum with nano-thermite.
- He refers to govt reports that say radiation of types X, Y, and Z were measured at certain levels. (Interesting that he condemns the govt for slow-walking and unscientific work in other 9/11 reports, yet he accepted this radiation report without question. Given the govt track record, these reports on radiation levels deserve further scrutiny.)
- He deduces that known nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C were not used, because the measured radiation types X, Y, and Z were at insufficient levels to match those known weapons. (Garbage in / Garbage out.)
- He concludes without more substantiation in a scientific slight-of-hand that no nuclear weapons were used, just because data didn't line up with publicly known nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C. What about potential nuclear weapons of type E, nuclear reactors of type F, or cold fusion type G?
- He stops any further speculation about what could have resulted in the anomalous measured radiation X, Y, and Z.
- He takes the anomalous radiation measurements off of the table through the scientific slight of hand of redefining "background levels" to be 55 times greater than their previous levels. Thus, measured radiation was at or below the new background level. (This comes from Dr. Ed Ward.)
- In the realm of nano-thermite, he lets the science-challenged yeomen like you extrapolate it to explain features in the destruction that it cannot. The support for nano-thermite being explosive enough (in reasonable quantities) to achieve pulverization is weak, but worse is its ability -- even in combination with other slow-burning incendiaries -- to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without unreasonably massive quantities of such.
- Dr. Jones is the one who publicly framed Dr. Wood's work as "beams from space" and "space beams." (From Mr. Andrew Johnson)
- Granted that many of us are reading historical exchanges between Dr. Jones and others for the first time and out of context on various web-sites. The impression I get from the language and tone from Dr. Jones sometimes uncharacteristically takes a negative tilt. He didn't shy from playing the disinfo card against others, and it wouldn't surprise me -- like the "space beam" taunts -- if we discover him pre-emptively doing so.
- Dr. Jones participation on behalf of the US govt in getting cold-fusion research shut down (at least as far as the public was concerned) for a couple of decades is noteworthy as well. (From Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson.)
And I STILL have not come across a serious scientific critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. I even took off my black sunglasses to make sure I wasn’t missing any details.
The only things that DO exist originate with that stooge Greening, over at the JREF forums, where all is hi-fives and “yuk yuk ain’t we cute”.
Truth & Shadows and humble Maxwell's Silver Hammer might just change where such speculation is found on the internet via this very posting.
I have never spent significant time on JREF, and I think this is because they didn't approve my registration, so I couldn't participate. Reading what people link me to proves that JREF's "yuk yuk yuk" is well deserved and a blessing to us all, just like the Three Stoogies of old. Negative examples can have positive influences.
Señor El Once : brain-dead plugging of Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming alarming
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I am the resident champion of Dr. Wood and Mr. Shack, although I do it in a left- and back-handed sort of a way. I have no problems handing off one of those batons to you, but I follow you only so far as you follow the truth.
Your brain-dead plugging of Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming alarming. Although her textbook is a quality effort, it is not without fault. And because the seeds of disinformation are sown everywhere, the very real possibility exists that some clever disinfo vines have grown around her ankles.
I can think of a few instances off-hand here or there where her website should have been corrected, yet these same instances were carried over into her expensive book. One example was the fire truck with front end "melting" that she asks where the engine went, as if it were melted. The engine didn't melt; it is set further back and isn't visible.
A strength of Dr. Wood's book is also its weakness. She brings up many different concepts, but rarely ties them together or concludes anything definitively. I could be convinced of the Hutchison Effect in general as something scientifically valid (but am still on the fence), but it is another hurdle entirely to determine applicability to 9/11. The same applies to free energy and Hurricane Erin.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
I know Mr. Shack very well. He is a disinformation agent. He does not have the scientific training to make ANY evaluations. You are muddling the waters. This is another technique used in a disinformation campaign.
Yeah, well, Mr. Shack considers Dr. Wood disinformation. I'm at least open-minded enough to consider what he has to say. I have no problem with him helping trim the fat from Dr. Wood's legacy and discover the areas where Dr. Wood might have been duped.
Scientific training isn't the skillset that is required to evaluate digital forgeries. "Distrust but verify" in the realm of all 9/11 imagery is the important lesson that Mr. Shack has already taught me.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
You have not studied Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook very well. You get a c-
Well, I guess that you'll just have to step in and tutor me, so I can get a better grade.
Mr. Goldstein continues:
Everything that glows is not hot. She gives many examples of no evidence of high heat. Don’t confuse smoke with fuming either. You need to read her textbook again and take notes.
Mr. Goldstein would be well to recognize that glows manufactured in imagery by digital manipulation also are not hot in the literal sense, but quite possibly the figurative.
As my tutor, I hope that you will be reading her textbook as well, and taking notes.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook makes a very clear argument that NO KINETIC ENERGY DEVICE “dustified” the World Trade Center complex. You now have a D and may have to take the course over to get credit.
Excuse my French. WTF? I don't know what you mean by "kinetic energy device?" I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
it is disinformation to make claims of ANY KINETIC DEVICE having to do with the destruction. Maybe you lack the critical thinking skills to understand this or you have been brainwashed to the point that you can not understand the evidence as it is presented.
Woa, cowboy!
I hope you'll be my instructor when I take the course over for credit.
Señor El Once : Why of all the low-down, dirty-rotten, under-handed, back-stabbing, yellow-belly tricks
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes on one thread:
Point blank; my patience has gone from thin to nonexistent. adios mr eleven.
~Secret Agent Man
And in another thread, Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
And in so doing see that you haven’t grasped mine. And I am not going to try to get you to again. It is futile.
~Secret Agent Man
Why of all the low-down, dirty-rotten, under-handed, back-stabbing, yellow-belly tricks, you pull this one? When the going gets tough, you get out!
Checks-and-balances, Rogue Agent Hybrid. I'm so easily duped by whatever theory crosses my plate, hashing it out against a well-read, articulate entity -- even when in disagreement -- such as yourself is most helpful. As you saw from my benchmarking efforts with Mr. Shack, the facts behind my opinions can change, necessitating changing those very opinions. Do you have such abilities, Secret Agent Man?
Of course, I understand when it is wise for nonsense to be dropped like futile battles regarding beliefs that fast-burning nano-thermite whether or not in combination with a slow-burning incendiary can reasonably and realistically in a logistics sense account for the duration of hot-spots observed in the rubble. So no sense us cranking that one up again. I'll let you chalk up your defeat to me simply being more bat-shit crazy than you.
I know you're anxious to take Dr. Wood's textbook down a peg or two. You're more than welcome to help in that endeavor, but ... come on! Show some objectivity! Be an intelligent thinker on the matter. Such a Q-group agenda ain't going to happen if you aren't even on the same page to know where we're looking for errors.
By that same token, you'll easily be able to prove me wrong on the "Q-Groupie" ad hominem's lobbed your direction simply by demonstrating the ability to acknowledge nuggets of truth sifted out of the dross of disinformation, and then reflecting how such truth nuggets might have (or not) applicability in the bigger 9/11 picture. Sounds charming, no?
Señor El Once : Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of bras
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I wrote:
Disinformation is often the best source of (nuggets of) truth with respect to 9/11. As such, those not willing to explore that which they prejudge to be disinformation will never find the hidden nuggets of truth that make up what the truth of 9/11 is. And consequently, the means with which they duped us in this hoax will be re-deployed again and again, to our demise.
You ask:
In what is there “prejudgment”?
"Duh? My name is Rogue Agent Hybrid. My circuits get rusted when I as much as entertain the notion of sending my Q-bots into Simon Shack's rabbit holes or into the open crack of Dr. Wood's textbook. Nope. Ain't going there, and will continue to plug along from my strong position of ignorance on both subjects."
You, like me, have obviously been around the 9/11 block several times here in cyberspace. [And we've probably been allies in most things 9/11.] You've been on the disinformation merry-go-round in various cyber-forums, and like me, are dizzy. The truth movement has been spun worse than damp wrinkled clothes in an efficient German washing machine at RPM's higher than a race car.
Those of us still seeking truth in the hopes of applying it to better our present situation [America, the world], well,... "question authority" was the mantra of the generation before me. The mantra of 9/11 truth seekers has become "distrust but verify" and necessitates revisiting lots of data points in what we were told from official sources, told from within the 9/11 truth movement, and told even from its fringes. We're force to triangulate God's honest truth from there.
Let it be admitted ... that long before [Dr. Wood] published her mighty tome ..., central portions of her propositions were scientifically critiqued as false logic based on misrepresentation of the scientific facts addressed.
Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass have admittedly been deployed in such scientific critiques, I discover when I research this objectively, on my own, and going deeper than second-hand regurgitated cud. Cud does have nutritional value, which is why the sacred cow chews it some more in the manufacture of milk. Alas, cud ain't Spring grass either, and I've found many instances of the such scientific critiques running pre-maturely out of steam or simply off the road into the weeds.
** We now interrupt this posting-in-progress to bring you highlights from the latest Mr. HybridRogue1 posting and my commentary. **
I gave a history of Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion that totally dispenses with these spurious allegations.
Not really. It just frames it in a different light. When I objectively reviewed some time ago those allegations and the 1989 video of Dr. Jones, I got the same impression as the allegations. My hazy recollection is: Dr. Jones on behalf of the US govt was debunking cold fusion.
To learn of "Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion" is information that I didn't have and adds some motive to the allegations: let the academic competition think cold-fusion is a dead-end, so "Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion" can do an end-around quarter-back sneak and become the hero. But don't hold me to these impressions.
As far as “space beam” taunts’…for kryst sake blenderman, the very title of the paper Wood wrote is “Star Wars -Beam Weapons”…WTF does that infer to you?
Touche, Mr. HybridRogue1.
In fact, my earlier impressions were that Dr. Wood's space-beams was how she was purposely shooting her disinformation legacy in the foot, as all disinformation agents are required to do at some point in their lifecycle in order to take out that premise and more importantly lots of supporting evidence and truth nuggets from further serious consideration by a thinking public.
And it was indeed laughable: space-beams on the towers?! What croc! Any fool can see from Mr. Chandler's high school physics videos that dustification began within the towers towards the top, but not at the tippy-top in a top-down application as space-beams would require.
The two clever flies she put into that ointment are:
(1) that destructive space beams haven't been ruled out for, say, WTC-5 or WTC-6; and
(2) that the phrase "space beams" apply when contemplating getting energy from a hurricane to the destructive knife's edge in the form of a DEW device(s) within the towers. Such energy space beams travel through structure and must be snagged, transformed, and output at some other destructive frequency and form.
Still, to flippantly lump all of her legacy work into a bin called "space beams" doesn't do it justice. Justice is a relative of Truth.
Explosives Design: [...] Now, I find it remarkable that you are willing to ‘wrap your head around’ the possibilities of advances in ‘mini-nukes’ and ‘beam weapons’, but have not taken the time to look into the work being done at JPL and Alamogordo on these nano-milled metals and chemical additives.
Nothing I removed from the [...] section on explosive designs supports the premise that these advances in "nano-milled metals and chemical additives" would yield a useful product in the form of an explosive pulverizing material that can also burn under-rubble, without Oxygen, at high temperature, for many weeks [whether or not used in conjunction with slower-burning material] ... and applied in quantities that aren't obscenely, unrealistically, massive beyond comprehension as you are verbosely trying to lead us to believe.
You wouldn't be demonstrating a Q-groupie's tell of never admitting you're wrong, are you?
Shall we take a guess at the grade you received in "boojie woojie high school chemistry", because evidentally the concept of an explosive/indendiary burn-rate and working backward from a known burn duration to roughly calculate a starting quantity still escapes you? (And I bet you are totally annoyed that you can't snag Mr. Goldstein's disinformation flake from Dr. Wood's about there being no hot-spots, because that would put the nail in this coffin.)
Dr. Wood's legacy and Mr. Shack's legacy have parallels.
Speaking of Mr. Shack, here is a relevant snippet from a recent off-list exchange. Mr. Shack asked:
What would someone proving exactly HOW the towers were brought down contribute to exposing the 9/11 hoax? Would the effort of proving precisely WHAT SORT OF explosives/destruction methods were used, actually help making any progress towards exposing this psyop? Nano-Thermite? DEW? Conventional demo-charges? What difference would it make in the great scheme of things?
I replied:
In general, you are correct that the distinction between most of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant, with one exception that you didn't list.
Nukes have the worst PR, because the public believes that radiation from anything nuclear (e.g., milli-nuke, or a nuclear generator) will be cancerous ground for decades, if not centuries. Public gets a whiff of anything nuclear, they aren't going to rebuild the WTC. They probably would make them re-route the subway elsewhere. Hell, it might even cause an exodus of Manhattan. If banking elite had any hand in 9/11 (as would be indicated by Silverstein), then this is something they had to avoid at all costs.
Nuclear mechanisms not only gives little wiggle-room for who some of the conspirators were, but a whole string of enabling agencies from the military to CIA, FBI, FEMA, etc., not to mention the mass media conspirators. Certainly, terrorists could nuke us, but as we're seeing, terrorists wouldn't be so organized and efficient both in what they destroyed, but what they didn't,... or in how they controlled the message coming out of the media.
Everything that the conspirators hoped to gain from the hoax would be shot down with any form of nuclear revelation, because for them and govt, there would be status quo no longer. The house cleaning would be deep, possibly even to the restructuring of America into smaller regions. From within, the great empire crumbles.
I'm not married to milli-nukes or DEW or nano-thermite. But in my objective review of various sources, nuclear clues get the most song and dance to get them off of the table in dubious means. It was why Dr. Jones was called in: "Dr. Jones, we need you to put anything nuclear to rest from within the movement. We know there are unanswered energy questions. Here, take nano-thermite to fill the vacuum, even though it still a defense secret. Just as long as nuclear suspicions are squashed."
Most science-challenged thinkers didn't question the 9/11 Truther Dr. Jones. His papers were hard to work through, and even I had glazed over eyes. Still, tricks and deceit were discovered. [Refer to February 14, 2012 at 9:03 am posting above.]
I am not going to fall into the trap of saying they used method A or method B. The destruction at the WTC, being overkill and redundant, probably used something of every form of destruction conceivable: DEW mounted to the internal structure that later became "the spire"; DEW from space to bore holes in WTC-5; milli-nukes to create a crater in WTC-6 (or maybe that was space-based DEW as well); etc.
So the difference that knowledge of the exact mechanisms of destruction would make is in how deep we must cut to get out the rot, how deep we must re-structure, and what controls must be put into place to prevent it from happening again.
Whew! Sorry about its length, but the search for truth and its ramifications on a better world propel me. "Feed my sheep."
Señor El Once : Call me Señor El Once. And remember to roll the "R".
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Please. Call me Señor El Once. And remember to roll the "R" to be put into the proper mindset.
Okay, I'm sorry about the length "AND the complete scramble of mumbo jumbo that literally said nothing." Ought to be just about right for the silver hammer...
Parting is such sweet sorrow, as we see from you below:
[1] I will follow your jumping jack flash only so far.
[2] Point blank; my patience has gone from thin to nonexistent. adios mr eleven.
[3] I am not going to try to get you to [grasp my point] again.
[4] Fuggit dude.
[5] No, the going isn’t so tough, I am tired of dealing with your BS jive. ... Like I said there, fuggit dude.
All right, all right, already. Follow your own advice. Resist the urge to comment. Ignore me. Fuggit, dude.
Señor El Once : apology for the "hyper jitterbug scatterprattle"
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I cannot tell you how much your taking the effort to type in your high praise of my postings means to me:
More hyper jitterbug scatterprattle is simply not going to do it for me. Perhaps when you get your head on even keel we will have something to talk about.
I apologize that my "hyper jitterbug scatterprattle" has you so rattled.
You know what it is like trying to read one of your posts? It’s like you took the pieces of three different jigsaw puzzles and mixed them together in one box top, grabbed a handful and tossed them down on the table and ask, “what is this a picture of?”
Well the answer is simple man, it’s not a picture of anything, it is scattered fragments, and nothing else.
Right you mostly are, Mr. HybridRogue1, except for the "one step b-e-y-o-n-d" with assessment of "nothing else."
Quite the opposite and quite possibly nuggets of truth, too, eh?
Don't bother to respond to this and demonstrate further how your nerves are hit. You become rather unbecoming.
Señor El Once : upper block squeezed like a dusty accordian
Ms. Barbara Honegger wrote:
[O]nce the upper section of WTC2 began to tip over, there is no way nanothermite alone could have prevented it from continuing to fall onto the street and other buildings rather than into the building’s footprint. The only way to prevent it from doing so would have been to disintegrate the upper section…
Here is some hair-splitting on Ms. Honegger's point. Yes, applying energy to disintegrate the upper section is the only logical conclusion based on physics for how that cohesive block's angular momentum was arrested so completely to avoid the situation of it falling outside its footprint, its large mass gaining much kinetic energy, and thus transmitting that energy into damaging the bathtub (and other buildings). What applied that energy is a point of discussion. In theory super super nano-thermite and other materials that Mr. HybridRogue1 calls our attention to in other postings do have that potential. So the "no way nanothermite alone could have..." is a bit too restrictive. It probably could have; it all depends upon the quantities and the control.
Mr. HybridRogue1 countered with:
I think you are wrong on this point – note that this is the point at which the global destruction began. It is my view that this building was initially meant to be demolished AFTER the first one hit, but that because the top section did begin to twist and seemingly was about to fall, that the blast sequence began as an emergency contingent and this building was blown first. The top section which was supposed to appear as the “pile driver”, if it had been left to fall or dangle would have ruined the whole effect. As it is assumed in the demolition scenario that the tower was rigged top to bottom for the sequence – it would make sense that simply blowing the buildings out of the original sequence planned is what happened – of course leaving the problem of such a short amount of time between the airplane crash and the demo.
Here is some hair-splitting on Mr. HybridRogue1's point. Before they issued the commands to commense with the demolition, I don't think there was any "twisting" or leaning of the upper-section making it appear to be about to fall. Mr. Shack has proven news reports of such to be artifical and manufactured.
Mr. HybridRogue1 might be right that WTC-2 (2nd allegedly hit; 1st to fall) was intended to be demolished after WTC-1 (1st allegedly hit). But the reasons for initiating the "emergency contingent" plans stemmed from the fires being weak and waning (as evident by the color and nature of the smoke) and the firemen arriving on the scene in the upper floors and radioing their estimated effort to bring the fire under control ("two [fire hose] lines").
As for the contention that the plan was to have the building's upper stories appear as a pile driver?
If this "pile driver appearance" was their goal, they could have achieved it. They could have simply blown away the infrastructure below the alleged "plane impact level" at a controlled rate slightly less than gravitational acceleration. The block would have appeared as a pile driver crashing into the lower levels. The upper block would not have needed DEW or nano-thermite, because it would crush itself eventually like when it hit the bedrock. Even with the upper block starting to tip and lean, such sudden removal of infrastructure from beneath the upper block would help direct the path the block would take. However, this technique would have been risky, because it had no guarantee that the upper block would stay cohesive or over the lower structure being crushed; major pieces could break off and do unanticipated and undesired damage.
Comparision of the destruction of both towers shows us that this "pile driver appearance" was not their goal. A nugget of truth from Dr. Wood's textbook is that pulverization of content from the earliest moments was their goal, because falling dust is much less destructive to re-usable infrastructure like the bathtub and subway than falling massive blocks.
A supportive (but unvalidated) nugget of truth comes from the Russian Dimitri K. who was plugging the disinfo deep under-ground nukes (that Dr. Wood debunks via the bathtub and seismic readings.) He said that constant city renewal impressed upon the city administration long-term planning. What goes up must eventually come down. Building permits, particularly for super large structures like the towers, in the 1960's required approved demolition plans. From top-secret Russian archives, Dimitri supposedly learned that milli-nukes (remember, Davey Crocket nukes were already field tested) were part of those demolition plans. The point being, dustify the towers early in the demolition to minimize collateral damage of surroundings. I'm sure their demolition planning left the door open for other weapons appearing in their arsenals that could achieve dustification -- like a nuclear powered DEW --, possibly without the side-effects of exploding a nuclear bomb.
At this point, astute thinkers should view some of Mr. Chandler's A/E videos. One in particular applies some boojie woojie high school physics to just the top part of one of the towers. His amazing revelation came after measuring that the top roof line moved downward at 2/3 gravity (e.g., slower than gravity). The revelation was that, agreeable to Newtonian physics, this required the nullification of 2/3 the supporting infrastructure.
My contributing revelation when viewing those videos was that the upper block squeezed like a dusty accordian in on itself before the collapse wave moved too many floors below the "alleged plane's impact" level. The accordian compression of the upper floors didn't have tells of pulverizing explosives (cracks of thunder, bright flashes, shock waves). No, the upper block had its interior contents and infrastructure compromised gracefully. Like a stick of butter melting into a hot frying pan, the inner portion of upper block seemed to melt onto a hot knife edge of a DEW beam.
Mr. HybridRogue1 continued with:
If you watch this on video, you will note a helicopter come up close to the tipping segment just prior to it being blown and the rest of the sequence commencing from there. It is my view that the copter was where the signal came from to set off the charges.
It is Mr. Shack's view that we can't trust any of the 9/11 images. Helicopters visible in some footage and not others for the same time sequence was one piece of evidence he presented to prove video manipulation happened. Some of the helicopters were pixel renditions.
So, I wouldn't put too much stock into all of the helicopters you see in videos. Distrust but verify.
Señor El Once : the framing "9/11 was a nuclear event."
Dear Mr. McKee,
Praise go to you yet again for wonderful efforts.
Professor George Lakoff has written a lot about the related version of the spin wording your article introduces. He calls is "framing." He was applying it to politics, and he wrote many articles to help the Democrats expose the malframing agenda imposed by the Republicans in debates. The reason Obama was so successful getting elected was that the framing they put around him was so compelling to our rational, loving selfs. As politicians teach us, the frame you put to a debate does not have to coincide with the reality of your actions. If you can frame the region of discussion ("choose your battles"), you get home-court advantage out the wazoo, because re-framing a discussion sometimes requires the extra effort of demonstrating why the previous framing was a malframing or a misframing of the issue.
Case in point, I am starting to use the framing "9/11 was a nuclear event." Before others jump in with their evidence of super duper nano-thermite, let us put that into the frame of secondary and redundant back-up in an overly efficient operation. Being a nuclear event, though, doesn't misframe it as being exclusively milli-nuclear devices. A milli-nuclear or cold-fusion reactor to provide power to some other destructive mechanism, like a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) adheres to the frame nuclear event. Given what nano-thermite can do, I'd probably pack those reactors and DEW devices into a blanket of such to help burn up the evidence once the deed was done. However, nano-thermite has nothing on unspent but fizzling nuclear material when it comes to being able to create hot-spots with the ability to fizzle and smolder without Oxygen for many weeks or more.
This isn't meant to crank up the previous debate. It is meant to show that "9/11 was a nuclear event" is the framing that the perpetrators absolutely do not want applied, and it is why they worked so feverishly to build and maintain their malframes of gravitational collapses and super duper nano-thermite and to a certain degree energy beams from space, despite how stupid they are to non-science-challenged thinkers.
A problem with 9/11, is the official framing sometimes looks like stretched and bent gerrymandered political districts, noteworthy for the areas covered and for the areas not: the holes in their framing and discussion points through which a trend line of light shines.
I've made it a habit to objectively review (dis)information sources to mine, refine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth and to indentify the dross of disinformation. "9/11 being a nuclear event" is a laser-beam straight tend line that pierces the holes in most 9/11 framing, even those labeled and perceived as disinformation sources.
Señor El Once : the "super duper nano-thermite" frame
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You wrote:
The attempt to “reframe” the government position as containing the “super duper nano-thermite” frame is so disingenuous that the intent of someone asserting this should be questioned very carefully.
Don't make me laugh, because I'll probably choke on the words that, as you habitually do, you try to shove into my mouth... Maybe we should question very carefully the disingenuous intent of such habitual actions on your part.
But now that they are in my mouth, let us chew on them a spell like cud of the "super duper nano-thermite" sacred cow.
I know you don't like me inserting "duper" between "super" and "nano-thermite", but aside from them rhyming and always belonging together even from the days of "Superman" comics, it inserts into the framing of the phrase an element of something "duping" us.
At first, I thought your latest antics here were such a flamable strawman, because I never said or implied that "super duper nano-thermite" was the official framing of the govt conspiracy theory. But now that I think about it, you might be right. I'll let you have the credit for bringing up such an astute observation: "Super duper nano-thermite" is the official govt framing!
You see, if Dr. Jones was a govt infiltrator to steer us away from thinking about "9/11 being a nuclear event," then anything he proposes to fill the vacuum -- like "super duper nano-thermite" handed to him by the govt and only produced in MIC facilities -- becomes the quasi back-channel official govt position. "Thus far and no further; defend that line at all costs."
Don't believe me? Consider how hard the Cass Sunstein NSA Q-Groupies have worked to discredit nano-thermite. They've always taken zealous offense in most discussions, always falling back on the ludicrious jet fuel, office furniture fires, weakened steal, and pile driving Newtonian gravitation to lamely explain content pulverization. (If they can, they purposely ignore the infamous duration of under-rubble hot-spots.) Their zeal, poor understanding of physics, and inability to admit they were wrong are what gave away their token offense. They set themselves up to purposely lose those discussion in order to prop up the token winner: "super duper nano-thermite."
This isn't to say that "super duper nano-thermite" wasn't present on 9/11 or doesn't pack an energetic punch. It just means the fight is staged, because "super duper nano-thermite" has never been demonstrated in the real world to be able to achieve pulverization in reasonable quantities. And even if I'm proven wrong on this charge, the flip-side and the "you can't have it both ways" argument from physics is that the more "super duper nano-thermite" has its energy output honed in the direction to account for pulverization, the less likely such a fast burn-rate is able to explain the many weeks long duration of hot-spots.
Yet, Dr. Jones went to great effort to plant the seeds for the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth that "super duper nano-thermite" could burn at high temperatures under the rubble by obtaining Oxygen from the steel it was burning. Where are the peer-reviewed papers from Dr. Jones et al that estimates quantities of "super duper nano-thermite" that can account for pulverization ~AND~ hot-spot duration? Missing in action.
You write:
This is preposterous and outrageous, without foundation upon any known facts, but based in delusional fantasy or malignant intent. I have seen this building in the subtext of your arguments for some time MISTER Señor El Once.
Let's chalk it up to delusional fantasy, because I am, afterall, a duped useful idiot. Thus, the way to get me to build a different subtext to my arguments is to provide sound science-based arguments to dupe me into some other delusional fantasy. Your boojie woojie high school chemistry has been proven inadequate to the task.
You write:
And this is why I have made it a point to follow your arguments carefully and rebut them.
Could it also be that you were assigned such a task, as would be evident by your zeal to comb through all of Truth & Shadows and to proliferously post and post and post to get the last word in? Too bad they refuse to let you have the tools that could help you rebut my arguments, namely Dr. Wood's textbook and Mr. Shack's September Clues.
Me thinkest thou doth protest too much.
Thank you for providing that opening.
Señor El Once : loopy thinking or delusional hypothesizing
Split those damn hair, Mr. HybridRogue1. That's another way of growing a full head of hair, albeit very fine and whispy.
You write:
FACT: the official-story has never contended that the buildings were destroyed by explosive demolition.
True. Super duper nano-thermite is the supposition from the mainstream 9/11 Truth movement, a movement that was destined to be created, infiltrated, and steered by the govt, covertly if at all possible.
In the same paragraph beginning with FACT, you add:
You are now, with zero evidence, adding to the list of “perpetrators” the very people espousing explosive demolition, which is counter to everything the government has ever said.
Zero evidence? Sure you can pin that on me.
But the allegations of me adding the very people espousing explosive demolition and Super duper nano-thermite to the list of "perpetrators" is really just you coming delusionally unhinged behind your secret agent sunglasses and skinny black-tie.
If my statements do anything, they add to the list of "duped people" the very people who thought they weren't duped and were onto the truth when they rallied behind nuclear physicists and super duper nano-thermite discoverer Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones' involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement didn't come until 2003 (?) or so, so he could hardly be a "perpetrators". Damage control and infiltrator? Maybe. But "perpetrators"? Nah.
Here again, your nasty habit of putting words into my mouth is demonstrated and put on display.
You write:
By insinuation and innuendo you are charging the core members of those who have exposed the lies of the government, as agents of that government. This is deeper than what is known as a ‘revetment’ or ‘fallback position’, such as the claims of “incompetence” of the intelligence community and NORAD, for this revetment would in itself indict the government as the perpetrator of the event.
You lost me on the second sentence, but I'll cop a plea of guilty to the first sentence with the caveat that lots of people were duped by the efficacy of super duper nano-thermite, including me for awhile. Duped useful idiots, like myself, aren't likely to be agents of the government. Duped is my true view of most core members.
You write:
It is my assertion that this tact is more than simple loopy thinking, or delusional hypothesizing, but is in fact a deliberate attempt to defame the core of the Truth Movement. It is in fact insidious propaganda.
Why thank you, Mr. HybridRogue1, for such a glowing review! Rather than "loopy thinking or delusional hypothesizing", I prefer to take the bull by the horns and call it "bat-shit crazy."
When you can't address the facts because your boojie woojie high school chemistry doesn't give you the chops to, you stoop to ad hominem. Come on! I've given you permission to use the homework not only of your 9/11 Truther Neighbor, but also your 9/11 Truth Movement Leaders to explain the duration of hot-spots by means of super duper nano-thermite and any combination of slow-burning incendiaries to prove that it doesn't require massively huge and unreasonable quantities.
It truly was "loopy thinking or delusional hypothesizing" on my part to expect that you would, to expect that you might offer a reasonable scientific explanation, and to expect that you wouldn't attack me with loopy & delusional ad hominem style charges. Gee, you haven't even addressed my framing that 9/11 was a nuclear event, that the many Hiroshima style ailments of 1st responders can attest to. I love the way you squirm.
Yep, when the agents lose their cool from their cold DUMB sites (deep underground military bunkers), we know that nerves are hit. Thanks for the confirmation.
Frequency of disinfo agent postings can also be a clue. So at this point, I'll turn my attention to Mr. HybridRogue1's second response to mine.
Second, you propose that the Sunstein crowd have worked so hard to discredit nano-thermite, as some sort of ploy to cover for some other ‘worse’ scenario, as if the proof of nano-thermite itself is not a clear indictment for an inside job.
It is called "picking your battles" and "sacrificing pawns." Yes, nano-thermite itself is a clear indictment for an inside job, but it leaves some wiggle-room open for outsource, off-shore operatives. Nano-thermite also doesn't give off the unmistakable whiff of radiation that takes lifetime(s) to go away. Nano-thermite, being the new kid on the block, doesn't come with quite the baggage framing that "NYC was nuked" does, even if it turns out that it was really a small nuclear reactor and a DEW.
You write:
I won’t address the remainder of the rantings in your last post because they all hinge on preposterous allegations and unscientific meanderings.
The science is there. You're too caught up in arguing to verify.
Manic dispersion, would be the psychological term.
Thank you again. I love it when you talk naughty to me. I suggest you refrain from such antics going forward, if you want people to believe you. It wouldn't hurt to crack a book, do some math, and verify with other "boojie woojie high school science" sources before you go running off at the keyboard. Arguing from a position of willful and purposeful ignorance is not strength. It remains ignorance.
Señor El Once : slippery character in this drama
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
I can only conclude from all of this Mister Once, that you are the slippery character in this drama, while you now cast the same sorts of dispersions upon myself insinuating that I must be some sort of agent involved in trying to muddy waters.
Slippery character in this drama? No, I'm the duped useful idiot.
I'll continue to caste dispersions upon you until you obtain some objectivity, open-mindedness, and humility in admitting what you know, what you don't know, and where you are clearly wrong. The inability to perform the latter is a slippery tell in agents with an agenda.
Where are you wrong? The most glaring area is trying to explain away hot-spot duration with super duper nano-thermite.
You demand:
address directly wherein these critiques of Wood are “wrongly oriented”.
I already did. But another tell of slippery agents is to demand busy work be carried out and then to ignore the crux of what is presented, preferring instead to go into the weeds with faux afronts of being called an agent or an infiltrator or he-said/she-said dead-end-alleys.
For the benefit of Mr. McKee's readers, I'll go into it briefly.
Dr. Wood's book doesn't draw conclusions. It presents ideas and concepts that might not be familiar to science-challenge people. She does it in an easy to understand way; she writes well; her book is of high paper, print, and color quality. Both her textbook and website raise valid scientific questions that must be answered by whatever is the 9/11 theory-du-jour. She presents evidence that must be addressed to be complete.
Due to the compartmentalized nature of the chapters of her book and the lack of definitive conclusions, any statements from her detractors that tries to pin "Dr. Wood said 9/11 was soley X with Y and Z" are in error, by crafty design. For this very reason, the old criticisms you bring up are inapplicable.
Her website is still promoting these issues that have been thoroughly debunked. As they have not been retracted there, one must assume that they have been carried forward into her publication.
Her website also has statements here and there that say it is still under construction with dates from 2006. It could clearly use some updating, refinement, reformatting, and corrections. Your assumption about what got carried forward into her publication is just that: an assumption. Why don't you validate it?
What got carried over verbatim, what was refined in the process, and what is new are left as an exercise for you to discover.
Contrary to your bold statement, though, Dr. Wood's website has not been thoroughly debunked.
Case in point, look at the pages that show anomalous damage to vehicles. On these pages, she asks questions about the damage. In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done. In fact, I've only seen one half-hearted attempt by an associate of Albury Smith that made it less than a fraction of the way through the images of one page, was very selective, and had the taint of an Albury-style skew that we've grown to love and cherish.
Why has nobody gone through, say, the collected images of vehicle damage from Dr. Wood, explained them, and included them into their conjecture as to the cause of the WTC's destruction, like super duper nano-thermite theories?
Because to do so calls attention to it and shows quite clearly that the debunker doesn't have an answer for it. In raising an eyebrow about, say, the Hutchison Effect, such debunkers would be forced into acknowledging a wealth of evidence in other areas as being valid nuggets of truth needing an explanation that they simply don't have (or don't have permission to reveal).
So, they don't go there. (And you don't go there either.)
But if they were being objective and honest, they would. They wouldn't be afraid of discovering nuggets of truth, mining them, refining them, and re-purposing them into an improved understanding of what caused the destruction at the WTC.
For the record, I have never said Dr. Wood's is the holy Mother Theresa. I didn't purchase her book thinking it was perfect, nor after reading it do I think such. I have discovered a few (so far) minor errors in her publication. I expect that several sections and maybe a chapter or two will be updated or removed at the 20 year anniversary for being in error or inapplicable to 9/11. Mr. Shack really did provide a key into unlocking where Dr. Wood was duped and/or is duping us when he questions the veracity of images.
That being said, Dr. Wood's legacy has enough nuggets of truth to make it a worthy entry into anyone's 9/11 library and to be used as a textbook for any course on 9/11. Even the disinformation, once proven as such, will be useful for students to see and understand how we were played.
In fact now you accuse [scientists who have made such criticisms of Wood] of being undercover government agents, for the “crime” of undressing your heroine Judy Wood.
Mr. HybridRogue1, the words you put into my mouth always taste funny.
That's a slippery tell of a disinformation agent: misframe and misrepresent your opponent's position.
The 9/11 Truth Movement has few scientists who are active in scrutinizing 9/11 information. The vast majority of them (particularly nuclear scientists) work for the govt or are beholden to govt grants, and probably have signed national security contracts preventing them from voicing their opinions and expert knowledge publicly. Dr. Jones is about the only nuclear scientist to have spoken up, except for the Anonymous Physicists (whose website I encourage people to go to.)
The faster a vehicle is traveling, the smaller the course corrections with the steering wheel.
Dr. Jones has applied just enough pinky to the steering wheel to get the 9/11 movement vectored away from thoughts of 9/11 being a nuclear event. Once that task was accomplished, he was rewarded with discovering nano-thermite in the dust, exciting speaking tours, and establishing a name for himself in the history books.
I've already pointed out the (few) errors in Dr. Jones (much larger) legacy. Those few errors start in his "no nukes" paper that was based on a govt report on measured radiation that itself was never validated. Concluding that 9/11 wasn't nukes of types X, Y, or Z was one thing for radiation measurements of types A, B, and C. Concluding it was no nukes at all (nothing nuclear) without substantiation -- and in fact with spurious evidence suggesting something else -- is quite another.
Beyond that, I fault Dr. Jones for not putting a halt to the extraction of nano-thermite characteristics by yeomen of 9/11 Truth to explain features of the destruction that they cannot. Does duration of hot-spots ring a bell with you? How about pulverization?
Super duper nano-thermite was neither the sole nor primary source of anomalies found in both the destruction and aftermath. The energy requirements were massive... the elephant in the room. The side-effects in the form of hot-spots and anomalous burn damage to vehicles are noteworthy.
You've addressed only the low-hanging fruit about Dr. Jones that really are of no consequence unless the other information is validated. So readers should take note of your hand-waving fizzspittle and unwillingness to look at Dr. Jones' warts with a critically piercing eye.
You are so anxious to get a flame war going, you have purposely ignored statements I have made through out Truth & Shadows that expose niggly errors in Dr. Wood's work, Dr. Jones work, Mr. Shack's work, CIT's work... It doesn't take their legacy off the table, it just trims the fat.
Nuggets of truth. Nuggets of truth.
I will not stand by silent while you rant and rave like a lunatic.
Take a look in the mirror to see who's ranting and raving like a lunatic. Since you discovered Truth & Shadows, your posting count has exceeded mine.
Mr. HybridRogue1, kindly take a lesson from Jesus, updated to today's venacular. If you find me "indeed ludicrous and absurd, and found to be humorous for a time, [and that my] continuance in this vein is unacceptable", then turn the other cheek. "Do not feed the troll."
If you aren't going to help me find the nuggets of truth that can be refined into a more accurate picture of how they duped us, ignore me, bro.
Señor El Once : accomplished Argentine Tango dancer
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I'll have you know that I was once, according to the ladies themselves, a very accomplished Argentine Tango dancer. Argentine Tango is similar to Jazz and Blues in being about improv, both for the musicians on the stage and for the tango leaders on the floor who have the responsibility of interpretting the music, leading interesting steps to the music for the followers, and keeping the follower safe. A good tango leader is concerned less about the decorations that his own feet may or may not make, but is dancing the followers feet and making her dance like a star.
In Argentine Tango, all mistakes on the dance floor are the leader's fault, even when the follower steps on your toes. Let me tell you, this humbling experience of always being at fault was great preparation for marriage.
You wrote:
If we are back to the “Buy the Book Tango”, sure, I would ignore you, ...
The book is a symbol for objectivity.
Your obtuse behavior has you failing this small measure of character. Until you either moxie the courage to evaluate the entirety of the book on your own or find an online chapter-by-chapter book report that gives you the Cliff Notes version of what your own opinion might be, you really don't have a leg to stand on while maintaining your credibility on this topic.
Your demonstrated lack of objectivity on this book (and the Simon Shack website) exposes your weaknesses and allows this very textbook, like the Beatle's Silver Hammer song performed by a Tango Orchestra, to come klunking "down upon your head" in a dazzling display of improv to get you in line.
Mr. HybridRogue1 says:
[... I would ignore you, BUT:] I know you know, that I asked you for a specific refutation by the Journal of 9/11 scholars to be addressed, so you could show me where they were wrong in their critique of Wood’s assertions.
"I know that you know" that you asked for no such thing framed is such a manner. You've mangled that sentence so badly in your attempt to impose a new frame about me supposedly dodging your request, I do not even know what exactly your (new) request is. Let's see: I'm supposed to address a specific refutation (of Wood's assertions) by the Journal of 9/11 Scholars? I'm supposed to show you where the Journal of 9/11 scholars critique of Wood's assertions is wrong?
You didn't ask for a specific anything. And if you would have, I would have turned it around and said: "No, you provide specific refuation of Wood's assertions by the Journal of 9/11 Scholars; then we'll see about whether or not it is (a) applicable and (b) wrong."
Because that wasn't the assignment, I obviously didn't comply. The assignment was:
Let it be admitted … that long before [Dr. Wood] published her mighty tome …, central portions of her propositions were scientifically critiqued as false logic based on misrepresentation of the scientific facts addressed.
I gave you a three sentence answer. You might have gotten more than three sentences out of me, were it not for your many posts that interrupted me. Be that as it may, I'm going to break down those three sentences, because (a) you didn't get it, (b) they answer the original framing, and (c) they actually come close to addressing your new malframing that wants to picture me as a liar.
Sentence 1:
Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass have admittedly been deployed in such scientific critiques, I discover when I research this objectively, on my own, and going deeper than second-hand regurgitated cud.
In the past, I have had the opportunity to explore the Journal of 9/11 scholars critique of Wood's work. "Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass" is my best recollection of a biblical verse that reflects my impression of far too many echo-chamber & brain-dead opinions of Dr. Wood's work.
Sentence 2:
Cud does have nutritional value, which is why the sacred cow chews it some more in the manufacture of milk.
The analogy is:
"Cud" is equal to "central portions of [Dr. Wood's] propositions were scientifically critiqued." I read it before, so reviewing it again is like a cow chewing on regurgitated cud.
"Nutritional value" means that the critique has value and might even be validated and in alignment with my understanding. This kind of turns it into a fool's errand for me to find fault with the things I already agree with.
Sentence 3a:
Alas, cud ain’t Spring grass either, ...
"Spring grass" is in reference to Dr. Wood's 2010 publication that does have some new information.
The famed critique related to old material, so it really does take on the appearance old grass that had made one pass through one of many cow's stomaches to return into its mouth as cud for chewing.
This is in reference to the blatant, undeniable, irrefutable FACT that you do not even know what exactly is in Dr. Wood's textbook; you argue from the weak position of obvious ignorance. Granted, some old material -- having nutritional value -- may indeed knock out, say, a chapter or two of Dr. Wood's new book, but old material doesn't encompass all that the new book is, so fails in its mission of taking it off the table.
Meanwhile, the readers of this forum should well ask themselves about your motives and agenda that your weak argumentative position of purposeful ignorance exposes.
Sentence 3b:
... and I’ve found many instances of the such scientific critiques running pre-maturely out of steam or simply off the road into the weeds.
"Pre-maturely out of steam" is foreshadowing one clarification I wrote on February 16, 2012 at 7:23 pm:
... Dr. Wood’s website has not been thoroughly debunked. ... In order for it to be thoroughly debunked, the debunker would have to go through image-by-image and state what is wrong with each and her questions. This, nobody has done. In fact, I’ve only seen one half-hearted attempt by an associate of Albury Smith that made it less than a fraction of the way through the images of one page, was very selective, and had the taint of an Albury-style skew that we’ve grown to love and cherish.
Although the above applies to the website, some themes from her website are re-purposed in her book. So, if nobody or nothing old has debunked her website image-by-image, then that same nothingness is incapable of addressing the overlap that is in her book.
"Simply off the road into the weeds" might just apply to your efforts against me.
You read those three sentences and offered your review February 14, 2012 at 7:07 pm on a different thread:
More hyper jitterbug scatterprattle is simply not going to do it for me. Perhaps when you get your head on even keel we will have something to talk about... [Your posting] is scattered fragments, and nothing else.
Right you mostly are, Mr. HybridRogue1, except for the “one step b-e-y-o-n-d” into “nothing else.”
Scattered fragments? Or, Nuggets of truth.
Mr. HybridRogue1 went on to write:
Rather and instead it is your same lolly lolly lollipop roundabout again, mixed with accusations against Jones, et al.
"I know that you know" that you haven't addressed the critique I made of Dr. Jones no-nukes efforts except to call them accusations. Where's your science? Where's your math? "[I]nstead it is your same lolly lolly lollipop roundabout again" with the same old disinformation techniques of putting words into my mouth, misstating my position, building up straw-man arguments, casting your weaknesses onto me, trying to start flame wars with me, etc.
Plus trying to tag me with the provocateur label yet again.
Ooooh! I like it! I never called you a "provocateur", but I like it. It is exactly what you are doing. [As if I didn't notice how you are trying to crank up a discussion with Mr. A. Wright, who arrived just after Mr. Albury Smith was shown the moderator's door and who already has a reputation here. Not a good sign.]
Which brings us to Mr. HybridRogue1 statement:
Then [Señor El Once says], “I already did.” And this is a bald faced lie. And you repeat the excuse here on this page again. And anyone reading this exchange – here on this page – can see that you did NOT address that specific question, but instead claim it is irrelevant… because..because…because…?
With your a bald faced lie statement your true talent as provocateur on the A-team of the NSA Q-group shines through. As I document above, you had to go through a lot of twisting, re-wording, and re-framing of the discussion to come up with that one. Trying to get me all wound up and put this discussion... where? Oh, in the weeds of our very own he-said/she-said flame war.
Kudos.
Simply “bla bla bla.”
Applying your weaknesses to me. Another kudos.
Yes, a “duped useful idiot” indeed. Those words shouldn’t “taste funny” at all for they are your own self representation.
"Duped useful idiot" is indeed mighty tasty! How'd you guess it was my favorite? Yum, yum, yum.
You're missing the key point. I've been duped, and I know it. I just don't know exactly where, but I am eager to work through it and have sincerely been asking for assistance. You've been duped by something else, and you don't know it.
I've been sincerely asking for assistance in pointing out where the duping specifically is. All you can do is "simply “bla bla bla" and side-step the issue with all-or-nothing logic, whereby one error (whether or not more exist) in Dr. Wood's or Mr. Shack's research is sufficient for you to relegate both the entire class of research and the researcher themself to the trash heap. It doesn't, and you know it, because otherwise why haven't you given Dr. Jones the heave-ho for the same failings that I've brought up?
The answer is: nuggets of truth.
And you don't seem to have the nuggets to mine, re-fine, and re-purpose such nuggets of truth.
Prove me wrong. Man up.
No comments:
Post a Comment