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.
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.
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.
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:
9/11 reveals our entire governing system supports an agenda requiring the state to burn 3000 people alive now and then, for shock effect.
 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.
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
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.
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
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.
[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.