Saturday, February 11, 2012

Help Advance the Search for Truth

Hide All / Expand All

Maxwell C. Bridges : help advance my search for truth


Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : On a certain level, we are all victims...


Señor El Once : the agenda required the public belief of 3000 people being burned alive


Señor El Once : additional destructive mechanisms and energy sources must be sought


Yvonne : the 911 “explanation” was a LIE

2012-02-09 at 2:20 am

Simon Shack : Zany piece from Yvonne

2012-02-09 at 12:34 pm

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.

No comments: