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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.