Thursday, February 2, 2012

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!!!"

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : Chandler Straw-Man

2012-01-27


Señor El Once : Lofty Book Review

2012-01-28


Señor El Once : Regurgitated Satisfying Last Words

2012-01-29


Señor El Once : Other Cyberspace Encounters

2011-01-30


Señor El Once : Shack's Impressive New Rabbit-Holes

2012-01-31


Señor El Once : My Hybrid View

2012-01-31


Señor El Once : Modern energetic materials cannot have it both ways

2012-01-31


Señor El Once : The pitfalls of riding two trick ponies

2012-02-01


Señor El Once : Benchmark: premises that haven't convinced me

2012-02-01


Señor El Once : Apologies for being wrong in benchmark

2012-02-02

To the readers of this forum, Mr. McKee, Mr. Shack, and Mr. HybridRogue1:

I owe you an apology.

Mr. Shack has used in the past the interesting technique of putting (disinformation) videos side-by-side and having them club each other. The salient point isn't that one is more correct than the others. The issue is that at least one of them is false or manufactured, which proves complicity in managing the media message and duping us. Worse, all videos could be false.

I just experienced the painful experience of having the two 9/11 trick ponies (DEW and MM [media manipulation]) that I had been riding rise up from underneath me and clobber each other with their horseshoe clad hooves. And before the dust had settled, the ghost of a third pony (milli-nukes) is seen dancing around and laughing.

As trainer for the MM pony, well done, Mr. Shack!

Alas, the performance wasn't without flaws. First of all, titles like "Collapse Hoax" and "Faking of the Rubble" are too broad and misleading, because it is a fact that the WTC was destroyed and that there was rubble. More accurate titles might be "manipulating the collapse imagery" and "manipulating the rubble imagery."

Second, your forum and other links you provided ridicule top-down destruction for the wrong reasons and frames it -- whether or not on purpose -- as being media manipulation and screw-up's there. If we assume collapse initiation was a given, Newton's gravity alone cannot account for the speed and thoroughness of the destruction through its path of greatest resistance: the govt's lame, physics-defying explanation. When you apply sufficient destructive mechanisms (e.g., energy), you can destroy the structure any way you want: top-down, bottom-up, middle-out. The physics-defying destruction of the towers reflects the overly energetic destructive mechanisms chosen. Man, those covert ops were just too damn efficient, too thorough, too overly redundant! Video fakery shouldn't account for the silliness of the depicted top-down demolition, because by golly if they had the means to produce fake videos of destruction of the towers, they wouldn't have limited themselves to masking tell-tale flashes or too exhuberent laterial ejections of material. No, they would have slowed down the destruction so it didn't defy physics, which would have taken off the table all sorts of later conjecture by the likes of us!

Third and more importantly, when the destruction behind the media manipulation is framed as being possible with "conventional explosives" (as you did, Mr. Shack), it offers major under-estimations of energy requirements, logistics, and burning hot-spots in the aftermath.

Dr. Wood is the trainer of the DEW pony. DEW itself is not down for the count, but it is injured. Certain elements of the Hutchinsen effect being applicable to 9/11 as well as my hybrid-speculation into cold-fusion energy sources have hoof-prints on their ribs and are now gasping for Oxygen. Thanks to Mr. Shack's forum, I more readily see where Dr. Wood was duped and in turn misled us. (Let us be generous to Dr. Wood.)

The Clue Forum revelation is that none of the 9/11 images can be trusted 100%. However, the corillary is that nuggets of truth can be found in what may not have been altered as well as in what was. In other words, it is hard to create totally fake scenes of destruction, and much easier to take existing scenes of destruction and "enhance them" with features; the nuggets of truth are in both the manipulation and quite possibly what can be gleamed the original.

After viewing the evidence from Mr. Shack's forum of manipulation of the rubble images, two important questions are "what did they manipulate and why?" Here are some starting out-of-the-box thoughts that originate from me now trying to re-mount my milli-nuclear pony. Allow me to introduce the sister of "shock-and-awe," who is "calm-and-ahhh."

Shock-and-awe: 9/11 involved nukes in some capacities (but not all.) Consider the crater in WTC-6 and the pulverization of content. [Don't rule out DEW for some aspects of the destruction, even space-based DEW like the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, but set DEW aside for a brief moment.] Consider the energy required to pulverize content. Consider the lateral ejection of materials. Consider WTC-4 main edifice and WTC-2.

From a PR perspective, any whiff of 9/11 being a nuclear event reduces the line-up of usual suspects in a major way, including removing the patsy hijackers. Among those whom nukes implicates, is the US government, its agencies, and complicit foreign agencies (Mossad). Nuking has a PR stigma worse than just about anything; revelation that we nuked ourselves would result in wide-spread public revolt. Silverstein would not be able to rebuild on WTC. The subway through WTC would scare away riders. Thus, nukes was the line that could not be crossed in the public's mind.

Calm-and-ahhh: The EPA was forced into making an "air is clean" proclamation within days without substantiation that held up. In a similar calming trend, some of the image manipulation dealt with the insertion of people and first responders into the Ground Zero wasteland. "See? It isn't so hot, so radioactive, or so life threatening. These people are alive and walking about." Dr. Jones wrote his stilted analysis of the radiation measurments, "Because nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C have radiation signatures of X, Y, and Z, no nukes were deployed." (Nuke-peddler Dr. Ward claims that Dr. Jones' math redefines "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than before so that the phrase "below trace level" could be deployed.)

Dr. Wood's textbook legitimately debunked the deep underground nukes of the Russian disinfo agent with the pristine bathtub and seismic evidence. However, she tried to get milli-nukes off the table by questioning: were the fires under the rubble really that hot? Her evidence included pictures of mechanical equipment with exposed hydraulics that she correctly claimed would fail under such conditions (if real) when pulling out glowing chunks of metal. She also makes the correct assertion that all that glows is not hot, but was holding up strange pictures of firemen walking over a metalic material that was on fire on one end. Not to put any valid/invalid stamp on the science behind the Hutchinsen Effect, what is known from her book is that Dr. Wood reached toward this to potentially explain the anomalies she discovered in her collected pictures. Her collection of pictures included flipped cars, some of which may be faked images while others of which might be results of moving disabled vehicles to clear paths at later points in time. Pictures of flags on flag poles, trees with leaves, unburned street signs, and working stop-lights along streets (like Broadway) that otherwise resembles the aftermath of a nuclear heat wave were hard to explain when the pictures were considered 100% genuine.

Obvious, pictures is the key word from above that takes on new significance in the realm of none of the 9/11 images can be trusted 100%.

(Mr. Shack, you might have something personal to share on the following topic.)

Rumor has it that certain public leaders of the 9/11 movement have experienced threats, not just to their persons but also their families. Dr. Jones mentions this. Dr. Wood mentions this. Dr. Wood even lost a work associate in a strange unsolved murder.

In light of this, what sort of deals would you cut to preserve both your integrity and your life?

My unfounded speculation is that Dr. Wood was given the option of playing the crazy card. Her heavy, thick, colorful textbook maybe got its publication costs covered (maybe even at a loss), if she would include the Hutchinsen effect, debunk nukes, etc. To maintain her integrity, crafty Dr. Wood did just that but with the caveat of presenting lots of evidence, lots of hard-to-disprove dots, and few conclusions. She charged us over-and-over to "look at the evidence and let the evidence speak." And (with the help of Mr. Shack) now the evidence speaks, "I've been tampered with."

Unfortunately for me, my belief system is in flux. My how-it-was-done views have flip-flopped yet again. Most painful. (Damn you, Mr. Shack!)

Milli-nukes are back on my table. (DEW isn't necessarily taken off, but cold-fusion Hutchinsen effects probably are. Dr. Wood's textbook still has other viable nuggets of truth.)

Meanwhile, I eat humble pie and ask forgiveness for any misleading I might have done in my own pursuit for 9/11 truth.

P.S. Mr. Shack, I was composing this when you made your February 2, 2012 at 2:06 pm posting. You wrote:

I hope you may imagine how difficult it is for me to lend any credence to her thesis – since it is fundamentally based on photo/video material which I deem demonstrably, 100% fraudulent.



The 100% that you apply to "fraudulent" puts our definitions at odds. I can certainly see where additions (of people, flags, cars, etc.) and manipulations taint the image. When you write "100% fraudulent", it takes the whole image off of the table completely. Yet disinformation is all we have in getting the real 9/11 story. Within tainted images, I am still inclined to look for the pieces within that aren't tampered with, the nuggets of truth, for example, which through the depicted destruction demonstrate the massive energy requirements.

Worse than taking a single image off of the table, you take all images off of the table and all derived conclusions.

In reality even, some truth to tainted images may remain. It is important to know which images are tainted, what elements within the image are tainted, and what nuggets of truth remain. The level of destruction is one aspect to all images that remains and needs appropriate levels of energy applied to explain.

No comments: