Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 3: Salvage and Keep In Play


Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : salvage and keep in play

2012-04-13

Mr. HybridRogue1 on April 12, 2012 at 9:42 am

I have moved over into the pro-CIT camp after reading Onesliceshort’s very compelling piece last night. So this is as close to a total ‘conversion’ as I have had in some time.


Kudos for having the moxie to be able change your mind based on evidence and compelling analysis. In your mind (mine as well), the Pentagon strike takes on more of a tint of a Hollywood production. "Rather than having a real plane hit the Pentagon, let's just have the military-corporate media say that it did. We'll have a real plane buzz the Pentagon and find some other way of inflicting damage on those pesky investigators in the Office of Naval Intelligence to get them to shut up about the missing $2.3 trillion."

Earlier, you had made the following statement HybridRogue1 on April 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm

[M]y view is that there were no hijackings. That re-worked planes, most likely Boeing hull frames and wings, were specially created by the military for this op. Hardened wing edges, perhaps titanium edges reinforced by kavlar – juiced up engines with special fan blades to fly in the thicker ground level atmosphere. All flown by tamper proof remote control. They may have carried ordinance and fired missiles nanoseconds before their impacts. That is my best guess as far as the aircraft used in the operation.


Is there anything from the above statement that you want to salvage and keep in play (and/or maybe apply to WTC)?

Much of the Pentagon damage suggests a missile strike. The issue for me is that flying missiles are both visible and audible, and to my knowledge there are no witnesses to missiles flying parallel courses with a plane. My limited research into missiles depicts them with a tell-tale rocket (or jet) exhaust trail. To allow the missile to generate the appropriate thrust to get up to "ramming speed" with enough manueverability to get to the target that isn't on the plane's flight path, it would have to be launched "seconds" sooner and therefore be visible for several hundred feet (or more) flying a parallel path.

This is why I floated the idea of the missile really being in the construction trailer than allegedly housed a generator.

For that matter, though, the Pentagon is allegedly ringed with all sorts of defense mechanisms. Reason suggests that one could conceivably be reprogrammed and targeted at the Pentagon. Of course, its activation would be noticed, as would the empty silo. The construction trailer seems like a better option. And we have all of those animations of a plane hitting the Pentagon to thank for calling attention to that trailer to explain how it got clipped by the plane and moved from a parallel or perpendicular parking position to one that is askew and in near alignment with the damage path.

As for re-applying those "hardened aircraft" to the towers? Well, this is what debunkers of no-planes (like the very same Frank Legge) try to do in order to explain manueverability (& speed) at low altitude and heavy air exceeding the capabilities of the alleged aircraft. Also, to explain the lack of crash physics and the wing-tip to wing-tip cartoon outline of the plane on the buildings.

Seems like such a waste to harden a plane just so it can be destroyed (although much of the military's arsenal of bombs and missiles suggests a use-it-once-and-be-gone mentality). The real waste is that pixels on the telly and military-corporate media complicity can do a much more effective job of telling the masses what they saw and what they didn't see. And they were going to have to reach into this psyops hypno-bag extensively anyway.

Reminds me of Star Trek and how transporters came into being. I understand that the makers of the show didn't want to waste precious minutes of each and every show with the riggamarole of launching, flying, & landing shuttles, so they dreamed up transporters to get the crew instantly where they needed to be on the planet. Once explained and demonstrated a few times, the audience bought it. Problem solved.

Not that everything on 9/11 had to be the same modus operandus, but two-out-of-four Pennsylvania and the Pentagon scream of "no plane crashes." The remaining two at the towers have similar issues. Of all the bunk we've experienced with Sgt. Shack, no-planes might be the kernel of truth that his circus wants to distract us from.


Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : runway 15

2012-04-16


Señor El Once : wild-ass speculation about downed lightpoles

2012-04-16


Señor El Once : noticing different from noting importance

2012-04-16


Señor El Once : nervous desparation

2012-04-16


Señor El Once : ho-hum carousel

2012-04-16


Señor El Once : aircraft speed

2012-04-16


Señor El Once : full-sprectrum dominance

2012-04-16


Señor El Once : unwillingness to acknowledge

2012-04-17


Señor El Once : nugget of truth is still banging away

2012-04-17


Señor El Once : CIT's flyover

2012-04-17


Señor El Once : Newtonian physics does allow reverse

2012-04-27


Señor El Once : NOC flight path into the Pentagon did not happen

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : show, don't tell

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : Q.E.D. jumps some steps and exposes sloppy logic errors

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : No physics laws were violated?

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : thump you for your stupid actions

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : take your own advice and ignore me

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : made these arguments before and again overstepped your case

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : thinking and reconsidering perspectives

2012-04-29


Brian Good : clutching at straws

2012-04-19


Señor El Once : Assuming the validity of the obstacles

2012-04-19


Keenan Roberts : address some of your points

2012-04-18


Jim Fetzer : looks NOTHING LIKE a Boeing 767

2012-04-18


Señor El Once : trend line of physics defying video footage

2012-04-24


Señor El Once : towers were completely unoccupied

2012-04-24


Señor El Once : willing to consider the usage of holograms on 9/11

2012-02-24


Señor El Once : Cass Sunstein style blog infiltration had to take on a new tactic

2012-04-24


Señor El Once : Misdiagnosis

2012-04-25


James Fetzer : public sources are grossly outdated

2012-04-25


Señor El Once : piling on Dr. Fetzer

2012-04-26


Keenan Roberts : straw man arguments

2012-04-25


Señor El Once : too hilarious to even comment on

2012-04-26


Señor El Once : Let's play some more of that game

2012-04-26


Señor El Once : picture of honesty and moral rectitude

2012-04-27


Señor El Once : is audience grasping the material presented

2012-04-27


Señor El Once : word count for the active participants

2012-04-28


Señor El Once : argument for a hologram is not that complicated or detailed enough to be believed

2012-04-28


Señor El Once : Fezter's NPT

2012-04-29


Señor El Once : Triple bonus points for those who acknowledge nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's textbook

2012-04-30


Señor El Once : holographic media needs to be there as a backdrop or surface

2012-04-30


Señor El Once : long time since taking anything you have to say as worthy of consideration

2012-04-30


Keenan Roberts : flame bait

2012-04-30


Señor El Once : the pledge and torching strawmen

2012-04-30


Señor El Once : discredits your honesty

2012-04-30


Señor El Once : revealing of your character

2012-05-01


Señor El Once : You had me until you got to #6

2012-05-01


Señor El Once : troublesome word "video"

2012-05-02


Señor El Once : fitting cap to this thread of ~865 postings

2012-05-03


Señor El Once : concede the point and will no longer be advocating NPT

2012-05-03


Señor El Once : that a new topic is free to begin

2012-05-03


Señor El Once : skimmed over the physics lesson and what squaring of the large velocity does

2012-05-03


Señor El Once : probably run its course

2012-05-04


Señor El Once : having argued for the winning side in a rightful manner

2012-05-05


Señor El Once : depression was part of that headspace

2012-05-05


Señor El Once : pioneer in the use of pen-names

2012-05-05


Señor El Once : outing of real name unethical and immoral

2012-05-06


hybridrogue1 : science fiction balderdash

2012-05-07


Señor El Once : Okay by me if Hutchison Effects are taken off of the table

2012-05-07


Señor El Once : so bloody simple

2012-05-07


Señor El Once : consensus theme lead astray

2012-05-07


Señor El Once : nullify any edge that you detect

2012-05-08


Señor El Once : more parsing could be done between misinformation and disinformation

2012-05-08


Señor El Once : a back-handed champion

2012-05-08


hybridrogue1 : A can of worms

2012-05-08


Señor El Once : now for your criticism

2012-05-09


Señor El Once : Choicepoint

2012-05-15


Señor El Once : the theme of Dr. Legge

2012-05-16


Señor El Once : no clocks, no calendars

2012-05-16


Señor El Once : did not test for any other kinds of explosive residue

2012-05-16


Señor El Once : wish to expound upon these issues

2012-05-17


Señor El Once : no obligation to handle me

2012-05-17


Señor El Once : consider participating

2012-05-18


Señor El Once : an agenda that has been in effect for centuries

2012-05-22


Señor El Once : starting seed for an article on Dr. Judy Wood

2012-05-22

{The following was proposed as a starting seed for an article on Dr. Judy Wood. Mr. McKee could use any or all of it. What he didn't use would probably be re-purposed by me later in the resulting discussion.}

The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.

When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn't happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being "crazy, loony, nutty" and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.

Assuming that the 9/11TM has such Sunstein infiltration, then fitting well into the profile of government-controlled messaging would be the rabid way in which Dr. Judy Wood and her work are denounced as "crazy, loony, nutty" and with crass discouragement from serious study, to the point of banning participants from forums when they bring up Dr. Wood's work in a favorable light, or not allowing such discussions to happen in the first place. Despite many instances where Dr. Wood's research was discussed rationally on Truth & Shadows, relatively new tag-teaming participants disruptively argue for "separation and containment" [e.g., under this very article.]

Dr. Wood published in 2010 her textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?". It is 2012, and where are the detailed good, bad, and ugly book reviews from respected 9/11 scholars? Particularly noteworthy are all of the attempts at book reports without having read it. In their attempts to shut down relevant commentary inspired by her book, they cite articles that pre-date the book and that thus have no accurate knowledge of exactly what would be in the book.

Paraphrased from Hamlet: "Me thinketh thou doth protest too much."

Last year in a pay-it-forward fashion to get various 9/11 leaders or worthy debate opponents over "kooky, loony, nutty" mental obstacles that otherwise prevented them from acquiring Dr. Wood's textbook, Señor El Once offered to purchase them a copy in exchange for a fair and objective reading and "the good, the bad, and the ugly." Little did he know that the very act of accepting or declining such an offer would prove to be an early test of their objectivity and a hint of their agenda.

- Mr. Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll Forums: "I decline your gracious offer... It's a moral thing. And based on principles."

- Mr. Simon Shack of September Clues: "I will respectfully decline your offer - out of intellectual honesty."

- Mr. LeftWright of 9/11 Blogger was sent the book, but after confirming receipt has communicated to the gift-giver not a single word, let alone a good, bad, and ugly assessment, despite pings every other month for about half a year: "How's the book report coming?"

- Mr. David Chandler upon receiving the book gave these first impressions: "Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." He goes on to say: "There's not a whole lot I agree with. I haven't gotten that far yet." Six months later when prodded for a more detailed good, bad, and ugly review, he admits that he started but didn't finish the book because he had "better things to do with his time" [e.g., the anti-CIT paper co-authored with Frank Legge.]

- Mr. Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage, and Gregg Roberts of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth wrote FAQ #3: What's Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? that did not reference anything from Dr. Wood's textbook [which the authors probably don't have], misrepresents and misframes her work, and consumes half its space promoting nano-thermite [that has its own crippling issues.] The closest Señor El Once was able to come to contacting these authors directly was Mr. Cole relaying through his gatekeeper (Mr. Chandler): "Don't even waste time responding." Mr. Chandler elaborated: "Jon Cole and I concur that we consider Judy Wood to be a distraction, a disruption, and one who is promoting theories that are unsupported by evidence and transparently false. We have no interest in discussing her work further."

For the sake of brevity, many other data points clustering around the above trend line are not provided. The trend line is, however, that Dr. Wood and her work should be avoided and need to be marginalized before and to prevent others from objectively reviewing its content and from judging independently what is applicable and what is not.

Do not let the tenor of the article give you the wrong impression. Dr. Wood's work (website and textbook) are not without error and most assuredly do contain disinformation. The damning question for her detractors is: "Specifically where?" The reason it is so damning is the remainder, that portion that can't be definitely pegged as disinfo and is in fact true or simply evidence that no other conspiracy-theory-du-jour has addressed.

[Disclaimer: Neither Mr. McKee nor Señor El Once have any association with Dr. Wood or her textbook, and receive no financial benefit.]

What is Señor El Once's assessment of Dr. Wood's textbook?

The text and analysis of the first half are solid. Great new ways to debunk the official govt conspiracy theory with physics. Throughout the book, its 500 color images in the larger (7"x10") format with tables and maps to correlate the views of destruction alone secure the value of this book in your 9/11 library even before reading the text. They put into perspective the totality of the destruction for those of us who have never been to NYC.

Before I was half way through, I was recommending the book reasoning that if the second half unraveled into sweet-as-honey distracting disinformation, we'll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our grandchildren how our generation was manipulated and played.

The books strengths are also its weaknesses: each chapter stands (or falls) pretty much on its own. The book presents concepts and very few hypotheses regarding applicability of concepts to 9/11. No concluding or summary chapters tie the individual chapters together or define a definitive hypothesis about "This was how they pulled off 9/11."

After my first reading, other than a few tiny errors carried over from her website and many broken URL references [that she has no control over], I found no major issues or disinfo flags except my own disappointment that this crafty work had no definitive 9/11 conclusions.

Having had a year to digest Dr. Wood's textbook, I can more readily see the major hurdles for both supporters and detractors. Hurdle one is validity of a concept, which is a high one for detractors to overcome and to prove invalid or bogus science. Hurdle two is applicability of a concept to 9/11, which ends up being a high one for supporters.

[Unfounded speculation:] The inclusion of one or two of the concepts have more the appearance of a "get out of assassination free" card, ala "include these chapters that make you look bat-shit crazy, or else." So life-loving Dr. Wood's publishes them, but in a crafty trick (a) doesn't draw conclusions and (b) emphasizes the true importance of her book: evidence.

If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
~ Dr. Judy Wood


Indeed, much of her evidence is under-represented and largely unexplained by other 9/11 theories including the official one. In addition, before dismissing a concept as being scientifically valid but likely inapplicable to 9/11, remember to consider the totality of the WTC destruction and that what might seem inapplicable to WTC-1, WTC-2, or WTC-7 might not be so farfetched as contributing to the demise of other individual WTC buildings.



Should a prerequisite for the discussion be that the participant has the "Where Did The Towers Go?" textbook from Dr. Wood? Many reasons could be cited for considering this requirement, such as:

- If we're going to evaluate Dr. Wood's work, it should be her latest efforts.

- Dr. Wood's textbook pulls in the essential points from her website, presents it more clearly, and also has concepts that are not on her website.

- The pictures, maps, and tables that correlate pictures to views marked on the maps is worth the $44 price of the textbook by itself; it is not a wasted purchase for any serious researcher of 9/11.

- Nothing is more obnoxious than the book report by the wanna-be book reviewer who has never even peered into the crack of Dr. Wood's textbook.

Acquiring a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook (purchasing or borrowing from your public library) could thus be considered a test of your objectivity.

It is not being made a requirement but with this caveat: those attempting to give dismissive book reviews without having read the book and/or by using material pre-dating her book (e.g., Dr. Jenkins) can expect Señor El Once's copy to come thunking down upon their heads ruthlessly.

Three of the reasons for not making possession of the book a requirement are that:

(1) The truly relevant information (e.g., pictorial evidence, massive energy requirements of pulverization, other mechanisms of destruction) is available from her website.

(2) Objective reviewers will see aspects of her work that can be built upon and taken new directions, as well as aspects of her work that may be an irrelevant distraction (e.g., Hutchison Effect, free energy from space.)

(3) The book and website will have served their purpose by getting readers to consider how her evidence might better fit into other theories and think outside the "consensus" box on what caused the destruction of the WTC complex.

No comments: