Herr der Elf : Red-meat for this 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:
Here is why I believe the Ground Zero imagery cannot be trusted: OLIVER STONE'S RUBBLE FIELD:
Here is why I believe that the entire pool of WTC collapse imagery is a fraud:
CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE
Here is proof that the rubble imagery is also untrustworthy: FAKING THE RUBBLE
And here is further proof of the same: THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS
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.