Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Nuggets of Clues

Hide All / Expand All

Herr der Elf : Red-meat for this forum

2012-02-19

Postby Herr der Elf February 19th, 2012, 3:00 am

To the gracious participants of the clues forum,

I respectfully ask your indulgence. I am "Herr der Elf" here, because it is easier to type than the "Señor El Once" I use over at Craig McKee's "Truth & Shadows blog" http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie.

I am the resident champion there of both September Clues and Dr. Wood, although I do it in an admittedly left- and back-handed manner.

I objectively review all that I can; I think for myself; I stand on the shoulders of others and mine, re-fine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

Disclaimer: I do not know Dr. Wood and have no association with her or her textbook; Mr. Shack I only know from cyberspace.

I have been in email contact with Mr. Shack and requested the assistance of him and the Clues Team. I am hoping that you could focus your digital-artifact-seeking-eyes on a select group of images acknowledged by everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement... but particularly by Dr. Judy Wood.

In preparation for that, Mr. Shack sent me some links to review, which includes this very thread (the middle link to CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE). From Mr. Shack:
simonshack wrote:My historical outlook concerning the Judy Wood character: THE KOOKIE CLUB:
viewtopic.php?p=2365280#p2365280

Here is why I believe the Ground Zero imagery cannot be trusted: OLIVER STONE'S RUBBLE FIELD:
viewtopic.php?p=2353367#p2353367

Here is why I believe that the entire pool of WTC collapse imagery is a fraud:
CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

Here is proof that the rubble imagery is also untrustworthy: FAKING THE RUBBLE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489

And here is further proof of the same: THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458

I'm sorry to have to ask you to spend time looking out all these links, but I reckon that this is a necessary requirement for anyone asking me to allow my forum to indulge in an umpteenth, circular debate of the technicalities of the WTC collapse - such as those infesting most 9/11 truth forums.


I have reviewed them (mostly). They all have merit. You have sold me on the updated "Ronnie Ray-Gun" paraphrase to distrust but verify when it comes to all 9/11 imagery.


Mr. Shack wrote:
simonshack wrote:I do believe most longtime Cluesforum members share my views about Judy Wood, i. e. - that her gatekeeping role is to uphold at all costs the credibility of the 9/11 imagery - as she specifically struggles to 'make some sense' of the physically impossible/ ridiculous visuals of the ("dustifying") tower collapses proposed by the media.


I disagree with this characterization of Dr. Wood's efforts. It can easily be proven wrong. If Dr. Wood's purpose was "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", then we would see all of the images that she collected re-used elsewhere. We see some, because the borrowing went from established 9/11 sources to Dr. Wood and everyone else. The more curious cases are the images that she borrows and nobody else does, like the anomalous damage to vehicles. These are avoided by the mainstream leaders of 9/11; these don't get an explanation in their versions of what happened.

The above paragraph takes nothing away from any of the discoveries of 9/11 image tainting and the possibility that tainted images made it into Dr. Wood's work (as well as everyone else's). It would be a case of Dr. Wood being duped, just like the world was duped.

In fact, it was the Anonymous Physicist who suggested that Dr. Wood's purpose was to take all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event and wrap it under some zany theme. (I use the term "nuclear event" to include potentially multiple milli-nuclear devices as well as nuclear and/or cold fusion reactors to power DEW devices.) Thus, Dr. Wood's purpose wouldn't be "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", but to garbage-in/garbage-out misinterpret the significance of what was depicted.

Mr. Shack, you write:
simonshack wrote:Is anyone going to tell Judy that she is looking at CGI imagery?
Needless to say, for any scientist to base a thesis on fake imagery... isn't very scientific at all!


To your first sentence: I don't have direct contact with Dr. Wood, but will mention it to those I think might.

To your second sentence: Very poor... no, "lame"... framing on your part. Did she know the images were tainted? The vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement are not suspecting image/video manipulation, so we should be gracious and give her the benefit of the doubt. Basing a scientific thesis on tainted information does indeed call the thesis into question; only after answering the "what did she know and when did she know it" questions can any sort of innocence or guilt be affixed to the scientist. So, please. Let us be courteous and mindful by separating the thesis from the scientist.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Clanging of Symbols and Tinkling of Brass

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass

2012-02-14

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

My Humble Critique of a Small Fraction of Dr. Jones' Excellent Legacy

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement

2012-02-14

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.

Monday, February 13, 2012

The Boojie Woojie High School Chemistry

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : the boojie woojie high school chemistry

2012-02-13

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.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Ignorant about Propellants and Explosives

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives

2011-02-11

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.

Temper Your Enthusiasm for Dr. Wood's Textbook

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : temper your enthusiasm

2012-02-12

Dear Mr. Goldstein,

I caution you to temper your enthusiasm 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.

Distrust but Verify

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : Distrust but Verify

2012-02-10 at 12:31 pm

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?

Help Advance the Search for Truth

Hide All / Expand All



Maxwell C. Bridges : help advance my search for truth

2012-02-07

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Motivation for 9/11

Hide All / Expand All



Herr der Elf : Motivation for 9/11

2012-02-02

Insufficient Criticism of Shack's Work to Discount It

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : Insufficient Criticism of Shack's Work to Discount It

2012-02-02

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.

No real Americans will be hurt on purpose in this film production

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : No real Americans will be hurt on purpose in this film production

2011-01-27

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!!!"