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 WoodIndeed, 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.
Señor El Once : blackout on Hurricane Erin
Dear Señor Rogue,
The blackout on Hurricane Erin started with the earliest news broadcasts on 9/11. Only a couple downplayed mentions of Hurricane Erin slipped out on major network weather reporting in the lead-up to the planned events.
How were they to know on all major networks in all weather segments of all news broadcasts BEFORE, say, 8:50 a.m. that hurricane news would get overshadowed? Supposedly, they didn't or shouldn't have known. Evidently by what the producers chose to highlight and to suppress, they did.
The news saturation with the "attacks" that then would bump Hurricane out of being hot newsworthy should have started with the first plane strike like around 9:10 a.m. (give or take 10 minutes).
Considering the placement of hurricane weather news in the news reports leading up to 9/11, and considering the significance that a fickle hurricane could still play on that day to NYC with storm surges and air traffic, then this becomes something more than just another "rinky-dink coincidence."
Señor El Once : focus your ire like a laser beam on Dr. Wood
2012-06-04
{This was not posted to the forum. It is incomplete and probably stokes too much flaming.}
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've heard it all from you before:
Professor Wood’s Gross Scientific Procedural Error ... [T]he first rule for legitimate scientific investigation is that after proposed “evidence” to be used is collected, that it is essential to first double [and triple] check/verify and make absolutely sure that all of that proposed “evidence” collected and then to later be used to draw definitive conclusions from is real and authentic, and therefor completely trustworthy “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
The same argument can be made against everything ever stated by the 9/11TM. The fact is, however, that you don't bring these claims against others. You and Mr. Shack focus your ire like a laser beam on Dr. Wood. It is very much agenda driven.
And when I tried to get you and your clues crew to legitimately take out of play various images used by Dr. Wood by proving their taintedness, I'm banned before the analysis is even complete on the five starting images, let alone all of the images on her website.
You write:
There is nothing on her site, nor in her book, to show that she has ever made _any_ extended, serious effort to initially firmly establish the authenticity of any/all network video footage or still photographs to be used to draw her conclusions from,” beyond a reasonable doubt”, and nowhere in her credentials is there listed any sort of skill/experience directly associated with photographic/video fakery analysis either.
Allow me to throw a modified version of this paragraph back at you and Mr. Shack:
There is nothing on [the Clues] to show that [you have] ever made _any_ extended, serious effort to initially firmly establish the authenticity of any/all network video footage or still photographs to be used to draw ... conclusions from,” beyond a reasonable doubt”.
In other words, you haven't proved fake all that you claim is fake.
Señor El Once : Tainted imagery of 9/11 -- even satellite imagery -- exists
Dear Señor Rogue,
Before I answer your question, let's back up. I've been doing what I can to apply due-diligence to my beliefs. I'm not afraid of considering that which other sources label negatively to see if any merit exists to the label or the source. I'm also not afraid of changing my beliefs when the foundation upon which it is based changes, (ala NPT).
The whole river scene in this gif are square-ish pixels when zoomed in. And so just what is the significance of this?
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
http://gickr.com/results3/anim_782da81b-8a11-46d4-f911-41c0835759d6.gif
You are the expert. You tell me.
My humble knowledge suggests that the rectangular-ish pixels with orientation parallel to the edges of a rectangular image are obvious artifacts of copy & paste digital image manipulation using common software tools.
It was known that many boats were pulled into play on 9/11 to ferry stranded people to the other side of the Hudson. A satellite image without boats would indicate it wasn't from 9/11.
Supposing the boats were pasted into the scene... which I would dispute, ...
Why would your knowledge and skill in the digital visual arts dispute this? Are square-ish outlines common on at zoom-in of high resolution digital images that are deemed authentic?
Supposing the boats were pasted into the scene... what does this mean to you?
It has several points of significance.
Point 1: Tainted imagery of 9/11 -- even satellite imagery -- exists.
Point 2: Tainted imagery made it into the published works of Dr. Wood. It helps lead her astray. She concludes with words to the effect: "See how the missing material volume from the WTC is pulverized so small that it goes up very high into the sky and is registered as a big streak."
Point 3: [I could be wrong but] didn't Dr. Jenkins give this image to Dr. Wood in that ambush interview? Thus, we must ask how Dr. Jenkins came upon this tainted image and why did he seed it to Dr. Wood?
It was truly a pity that I couldn't get the Clues Gang to go through and thrash all images on Dr. Wood's website. It would have been a relief to say: "See? It all really was tainted images that led Dr. Wood to wrong conclusions." But NO-ooooo! They didn't want to take Dr. Wood down legitimately by actually proving all instances of tainting.
Señor El Once : more easily combustible materials than paint on cars did not ignite
Dear Mr. Adam wrote:
Paper and leaves could very easily have floated down and landed near burnt cars AFTER the pyroclastic flow passed.
Paper was scattered about from the plane impacts. Even more paper was scattered about after the first tower came down.
As for the leaves, they were on the trees. The flags were on the flag poles.
The point is, materials that were more easily combustible at lower temperatures (than paint on cars) were readily available and did not ignite.
You write:
As to people not being burnt well maybe they were inside a building as it passed, maybe they were protected by obstructions, maybe they moved after it passed, etc.
Mr. OneSliceShort wrote:
I read recently of an EMT who arrived on the scene at the WTC7 loading dock triage as the north tower collapsed and stated that as she was running away her hair and jacket caught fire.
That would be Patricia Ondrovic.
We don't know exactly what lit her hair and parametric coat on fire. She left the impression with me that it was NOT the dust, but was the after-effects of a car exploding right next to her. If memory serves me, said in one of her interviews that the door of one car popped right off of its hinges and out and slammed her into a wall.
You write:
This kind of assertion is very typical of Wood and it is sloppy and also not very specific.
I'll give you that Dr. Wood has been sloppy in some areas, but she had been very specific in others. She has at least two web pages full of fire damage to vehicles (but sloppy in regards to where they were when they got damaged). I've pointed out to you before the fires to vehicles along West Broadway next to the WTC-7 before it came down. If the pyroclastic flow was as hot as you claim and because we know this flow went around corners, we would have seen more fires in a more radial pattern from the source. That camera filming the news reporter should have picked up fire damage all over (e.g., on the cross-street), not just on West Broadway.
Instead, my understanding is that much happened line-of-sight as if it snuck out through gaps in the debris and window slits.
You write:
One of the reasons space based DEW’s can be ruled out has to do with the two different types of satellites in the sky.
I'm okay with that.
I guess I'm okay with space-based DEW being completely trashed, despite it being one of the things hinted at by Dr. Wood.
The reason I'm okay with it is that it is not my position or belief (on the towers) for reasons of the destruction originating within albeit high up in the towers. Space-based DEW would have scorched it from the roof on down.
You write:
Power supply is also a HUGE issue for either type of space based platform. These hypothetical weapons MUST have a massive power supply in order to power the weapon right? Getting heavy objects into space like a power plant big enough for the job for example is not realistic at all. The space station for example does not have even a fraction of the power needed for a weapon capable of destroying the WTC.
I'm not earnestly arguing this point.
You are correct in the HUGE power requirements. Dr. Wood makes reference to free Tesla energy and tapping into hurricane Erin.
However, you should be aware that meeting the energy requirements of a space-based DEW isn't so hard to come by. In the 1980's when Star Wars and the Strategic Defense Initiative were in full swing, one serious idea was to detonate a type of nuclear bomb in space and to channel its "useful" wavelengths (into targeting and destroying incoming missiles and whatnot) before the blast and heat waves obliviated the portions of the device doing that channeling.
In such an event, Hurricane Erin could be useful in hiding that nuclear detonation in space from prying eyes on Earth.
Again, it is not my intent to be arguing AGAINST you FOR space-based DEW. The purpose of this comment is to help you think out of the box.
A HUGE question also is, is there such a weapon in existence capable of destroying the WTC? There is no evidence at all supporting such a claim.
Sure, no evidence attributed to such devices exists in the public realm. As I've wrote before:
Star Wars and SDI were not some sort of jobs creation programs for the overly educated with no expectations of ever producing anything useful to the Defense Department.
How does the expression go? "We could fill libraries with the information the public doesn't know."
Señor El Once : hurricane was plan B
Dear Señor Rogue,
I speculate that the hurricane was plan B to really obscure things in NYC should 9/11 have gone horribly wrong. They didn't, so it wasn't called it. The hurricane is also a smoking gun in the sense that authorities knew it was there and did things like setting up command centers on a pier despite the dangers that a storm surge or direction change could cause. It hints at weather control, a military objective for many decades. The silence of the weathermen on the topic exposes another chink of foreknowledge, so the main media message of the "attacks" wouldn't be diluted or distracted.
You ask:
[W]hat are you imagining is taking place [from Patricia Ondrovic's statement: Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.]? A beam weapon just haphazardly spraying the streets of Manhattan? Some residual reflected wave/particles?
Not haphazardly.
I speculate that multiple DEW devices were in each tower. [I'll need help in speculating on the number and type of nuclear energy sources.]
The DEW's beams were aimed within the confines of the tower and such that they would not take out its own supporting structure (later known as a spire) or be aimed beyond the inner-side of the outer walls. The beams were probably focused in a broad fashion like a pulsed-cone. Opportunities for such beams to slip out unintentionally line-of-sight could exist via gaps in falling debris and window slits.
Señor El Once : specific photos of WTC-7 and West Broadway
Dear Señor Adam,
I apologize in my previous post that was written initially with me thinking Señor Rogue and making references to our previous discussion. Before posting I managed to catch the error on whom I was addressing and quoting, but not some of the internal references to, say, West Broadway vehicle destruction.
You asked for specific photos. Because you are not Señor Rogue, it allows me to re-post passages from an earlier thread [2012-05-07] for analysis here.
++++++
The first image is West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. More importantly, you can see WTC-7. The second image is West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image20.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/Image16.jpg
There's a great video of WCBS reporter Vince Dimentri coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was [West Broadway and Barkley] but was commenting on the damage looking like a war zone.
"Car after car after car and buses completely obliverated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
You are correct that timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although it wasn't flying in on fire). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter's piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of the undamaged vehicles appear to have been NOT line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
When all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred (Image19swamp.jpg and Image20swamp.jpg) mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun and soot on the trees. When the same trees are observed several days later (081swamp.jpg and 080.jpg) [after a rain storm that may have washed some of the soot away], the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds.
Ergo, WTF caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not light-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
Señor El Once : the spire is indeed falling
Dear Señor RuffAdam writes:
Regarding the spire Andrew I have studied that particular issue quite a bit and I can tell you from looking at full screen videos in the highest possible resolution that the spire is indeed falling and not turning to dust.
I agree, too.
However, the standing spire has various amounts of concrete, drywall, and such still afixed to it and acts partially as "glue", in addition to "piled" dust from other parts of the pulverized contents. IMHO something (probably from below) hit the spire with a DEW beam causing the residual water molecules in that left-over concrete/drywall/etc. to turn into steam and whose rapid volume expansion dustified it. The steam and dust linger in the air and no longer act as "glue" causing the steel to fall.
Señor El Once : Some of criticisms of Señor Rogue have merit
Dear Señor Tamborine Man,
Some of your criticisms of Señor Rogue have merit, but many do not. He is not Mr. SnowCrash.
Keep notes on "agenthood" suspicions, but please don't air them in this thread. Diverting the discussion into personal attacks is a common trick and one we can't afford to be taken in by when trying to mine, re-fine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth from the 9/11TM's most-reviled front-person: Dr. Wood. This may be our only chance to explore these themes -- pro's and con's -- in a rational fashion to serve as a reference for lurkers and googlers later.
Señor Rogue has expressed many views that put him squarely in the 9/11TM's camp. But he has had a laser-like focus on torching serious consideration of concepts inspired by Dr. Wood (e.g., DEW) and by September Clues (e.g., imagery manipulation, media foreknowledge), which rinky-dink coincidentally were my two hobby-horses that I got a lot of space promoting in the discussions without serious, thoughtful, or well-reasoned opposition. Until Señor Rogue's arrival, that is.
Señor Rogue may be an agent with an agenda, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld regarding Saddam: "Señor Rogue may be an agent, but he is our agent." He writes well and makes reasoned arguments. He is several levels above other shills and agents I have run across. For these merits, I welcome his contributions. He helps me make my cases stronger.
My only regret is in not being able to get him to smell the crack of Dr. Wood's textbook. It is a serious deficiency that has him fail any reasonable test of his objectivity. It certainly puts him into a weak position when trying to argue against concepts introduced by Dr. Wood and more importantly when opening up his thought to 9/11 causes beyond "super duper nano-thermite." He has failed to acknowledge the major weaknesses of such in accounting for content pulverization (without flashes, loud explosions, burning pieces of rubble falling, etc.), the duration of hot-spots, measured radiation level, and 1st-responder ailments.
Señor Rogue may be justified in taking Dr. Wood down a peg or two. But, his objectivity is further tested in not being able to acknowledge the nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood that cannot be so easily swept aside.
Señor El Once : going off half-cocked
Dear Señor Rogue,
When you go off half-cocked, it isn't a pretty picture. For example, you write:
[Johnson] makes several assertions in this piece that cannot be backed up in anyway, such as the ‘reasons’ that Jenkins and his people were ushered out of the room. It may simply have been because the room needed to become available to parties that had reserved it.
Dr. Jenkin's surprise interview of Dr. Wood happened at around 11 p.m. Pretty late, wouldn't you say? It was AFTER the scheduled event that Dr. Wood was attending.
Other than the prospect of Dr. Jenkins and his camera crews with professional cameras and lighting spoiling the preparations in the room for a scheduled event potentially the next morning, Dr. Jenkins and his camera crews did not pay for usage of the room, so had no right to be there. They were free-loaders.
Like your reliance on Dr. Legge before, when are you going to realize that basing all your arguments on Dr. Jenkins [with many known issues and an agenda] isn't helping you get at nuggets of truth?
Bought time you ponied up some cash and got some fresh ink to smell... from the crack of Dr. Wood's textbook.
Señor El Once : spinning wheels chasing a wild goose
Dear Señor Rogue,
Your re-posting of your words leaves out the fact that my re-posting was actually from two postings that bookended yours. My posting has the response to yours.
Sure, no problem. I will accept your criticism of DEW below wholesale:
[N]othing you have offered as visual evidence has any definitive nature to it as far as evidence of a DEW weapon, or however this thing is supposed to be described. I feel that I am spinning my wheels chasing a wild goose following your leads.
... But with the caveat that the same can be said of super-duper nano-thermite (combined with a host of incendiaries) and their potential burning activation in the pyroclastic clouds. In fact, trying to attribute the vehicle damage to those mechanisms [which I assume is your agenda] comes up even shorter in terms of being a full deck. You know this. It has been repeated many times with nary an acknowledgment (or valid contradiction) from you.
According to you, the CIT arguments somewhat recently got you into the CIT camp. Thus, your beliefs seem capable of being changed. I do not know why you resist acknowledging the failings in your 9/11 mechanism du-jour (e.g., super-duper nano-thermite combined with a host of indendiaries). It can't account for the duration of under-rubble fires or the measured radiation. It also can't account for the "specificity" in vehicle damage, as shown in Vince's reporting. You are simply making things up or uncritically repeating nonsense [your agenda?] when you go with your "hot pyroclastic flow." Gee, even Willy Rodriquez and a number of firemen were under a fire-truck much much closer to a tower than any of the vehicles on West Broadway, and they and their protective firetruck didn't get toasted. Tons of evidence exists of things that should have been toasted and weren't. And you have poor explanations for the anomalous toasting of some things and not others.
Thus, when you feel as if your wheels are spinning chasing a wild goose, it is because your don't have enough weight sitting on your bald drive tires to get sufficient friction to go up the slippery slope to the goose pond. Try putting a hefty book in your buggy's boot, like one from Dr. Wood.
Señor El Once : writings by Dr. Gregory Jenkins
Dear Señor Rogue,
I located and skimmed the two PDF files of writings by Dr. Gregory Jenkins that you were urging me to read:
- Supplemental: Miscellaneous Topics DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
- “The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 8 (February, 2007)
Surely what Dr. Jenkins writes has nuggets of truth in it, but I also discovered errors.
Do we dismiss his works completely based on the errors? No.
But this is precisely what your framing constantly does for Dr. Wood. You are too lazy and cheap to get Dr. Wood's textbook, smell the ink in its crack, and discover & acknowledge for yourself various nuggets of truth (amidst the errors, misinformation, and disinformation). So instead, you munge around on the internet for documents 3 YEARS OLDER than Dr. Wood's latest effort and try to foist that on us as the authority. [Duck! Because that was my copy of Dr. Wood's textbook be tossed at your thick head.]
In general, I like having discussions with you, Señor Rogue, except when you are obviously playing weasel games and when your personal (or professional) agenda seems to be to keep the lurker readers from finding anything of value in Dr. Wood's work. IMHO this has been your one consistent negative trait in your tenure here.
Dr. Jenkins did indeed find errors in Dr. Wood's work. In particular, I like the quote from Vincent Forras that says: "Ladder 3 was totally crushed by a large block of the building and twisted into pieces." This is yet another example where Dr. Wood was sloppy by saying it was wilted and not researching more into its history. [An example I've found is the fire engine with a caved in front that she says: "A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine go?" That style fire truck has the engine block sitting further back.]
Dr. Jenkins continues:
The bottom two photographs show the same minivan before and after it is burned. The likely cause is the flaming vehicle adjacent to the minivan.
Left image
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/2431.jpg
Right image
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image18swamp.jpg
Sure, I can agree that the van was torched due to the burning car in the middle of the street. But does Dr. Jenkins venture to speculate how the vehicle in the middle of the street and at various locations up and down the street got torched, but not the street lights, street signs, and paper? No. Seems to me, the "hot plasmastic cloud of dust" would not have been so selective.
In Dr. Jenkins' second document above, he immediately hops into framing the discussion -- "vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers" -- and doing huge energy calculations based on this. Granted, sloppy wording by Dr. Wood may have opened her up to this ridiculous type of extreme taking. I only recall (the error with) the spire where she talks of vaporizing steel, and that is significantly less than 110 floors of it. Clearly, the pictorial evidence that Dr. Wood has viewed and promoted shows significant amounts of steel in the debris. Therefore, for Dr. Jenkins to continue more than once to base his arguments on the energy required to vaporize 100 floors of steel is an indication of someone with an axe to grind in misframing the concepts.
Another NIST-style misleading error in Dr. Jenkins work appears in the following passage:
A previous analysis of the expected amount of debris generated from the partially collapsed buildings (WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6) matches observation if sublevel collapses are included in the analysis. The damage is consistent with impulse damage from falling debris.
The above would be true if there were sufficient debris from the towers on or in WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 to account for their destruction. Only in Dr. Wood's book have I found nuggets of truth about WTC-4 that clearly showed it did not have its main edifice leveled at a line with its North Wing by falling debris.
The charge from Mr. McKee:
For Wood’s detractors: is there information in the book you find valuable?
For Wood’s supporters: is there information in the book you find fault with?
I can find all sorts of nitpicky errors in Dr. Wood's efforts, and I bring them up and acknowledge them as such when I can.
Face it, Señor Rogue, you have mined precious little from Dr. Wood's website (let alone book). Your actions over several months now suggest that you are not seeking nuggets of truth; you seem to want to keep them buried in the rubble.
Instead of munging around the internet for other people's faulty, stilted, and malframed analysis of Dr. Wood's work, why don't you step up to the plate with an open-mind and open-wallet to validated (or not) on your own the source material.
Contact me off-list and I might be half tempted to purchase you a copy. I'm betting (a) you won't and/or (b) you won't accept my offer, because it is much easier for you to weasel out of a thoughtful review and analysis if you don't have the book in question. [Any way you look at it, Señor Rogue, I'm going to make hay out of this situation. Refer to my June 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm posting above.]
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
Señor El Once : when the other shoe dropped in Mr. Richard D. Hall's videos
Dear Mr. Tamberine Man,
Of all the programs that Mr. Richard D. Hall has created, I have only seen two (or maybe three). The first was his analysis of the "orb", and it was really LOL funny when the other shoe dropped late in the piece to have him conclude that it was an advanced technology device, not a plane, etc.
The second piece (that I'm still watching) is the one you post above. Great that Mr. Hall eats humble pie on that faulty "orb" analysis with precisely the same type of detailed flight path analysis of the various clips that had me recently eat humble pie on NPT. But then the other shoe drops. He briefly claims that the military radar data was from a cloaked drone that was projecting a holographic image of the plane to the 1400 feet left that amatuer videos caught on film. Again, LOL funny. Then he says (with a cameo from Dr. Wood) that total fascade damage out to the wingtips could have been produced by DEW (e.g., from the drone or some land-based system.)
The issue is that the civilian radar data is based on "radar ping returns." In other words, if we can trust the civilian radar data, then something physical was flying in the air to generate the radar ping returns. A holograph couldn't do that.
I don't know what the significance is of the military radar data being so grossly but consistently [1400 feet to the side] in error from the civilian radar data as well as from the recorded & correlated video footage.
As Mr. Johnson says in the video when he derides September Clues and other instances of "limited hangouts," they give 90% truth and then dupe us with 10% disinformation. I enjoyed how Mr. Hall and Mr. Johnson got on Mr. Shack's and September Clues' case for the stilted way in which they concluded things and their inability to look into the cause of the destruction (other than conventional controlled demolition.)
Thanks for posting the video. Like the orb video before it, good for a laugh. Alas, it doesn't give me confidence in the correctness or reliability of their views.
Señor El Once : inate obstinance to "see" the source
Dear Señor Rogue, you wrote:
I am not obstinate out of an agenda, I truly don’t see that this beam business adds up.
One of the reasons you "don't see this beam business adding up" is your inate obstinance to "see" the source. As far as I know, you haven't made any references to specific items on her website [where there is a lot scattered about to take issue with] to indicate you "thinking for yourself." Dr. Wood's textbook is superior to her website [but not without error], but your obstinance keeps you from "seeing for yourself" what is contained therein.
You've relied on third-parties [Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkins] to do that legwork for you. As I've readily admitted, they have spotted issues, but not without twisting into their frame and not without some of it [Dr. Jenkins' efforts] PREDATING by a few years the publication of Dr. Wood's textbook. Obviously, your obstinance doesn't see any issues with this, but I certainly do. From your industry, wouldn't that be akin to reviewing a movie based on the dailies created THREE YEARS prior to the movie's final form and not based on the DIRECTOR'S CUT?
But to your point of beam business not adding up. I might be persuaded one day (like NPT) that it does not, but your case does not.
You write:
I think the Thermobaric, sol-gel, nano milled explosives are the most likely culprits for the WTC event.
You pull these out of thin air without substantiation.
But tell me, how would these account for:
- radiation measurements?
- duration of under-rubble hot-spots?
- low decibel readings?
- damage to vehicles (and not other combustibles) some distance from the towers?
And I have yet to see anything compelling on the directed energy beam aspect.
Of course, because you have yet to see Dr. Wood's book (among others.) Duh!
Actually, I shouldn't lead you astray. You have to stand on the shoulders of Dr. Wood's textbook and combine her efforts with other sources to find compelling information.
DEW devices exist. DEW devices are operational. These are undeniable facts. Look up "active denial systems" as a start.
Whether or not DEW devices can generate and focus the required energy levels in their destructive beams on a scale to account for the tower destruction is a point of debate.
I'm so rabid in my bat-shit crazy mining of nuggets of truth that I throw out this gem that may have come from Dr. Jones himself. Namely, the trigger for super-super nano-thermite [and other explosives and incendiaries] could be a DEW device.
[wild-ass speculation begin]
Maintenance workers over long periods of time "painted" on sol gel and nano-thermite or whatever. Come the destruction day, the nuclear-powered DEW beams lacked the energy to "vaporize" or "dustify" content on their own, but not so for igniting what was painted on. The spire-based DEW devices could be targeted and pulsed with precision to ignite those incendiary coatings at the right time. At the end of the day, unspent fizzling remnants from the nuclear power source account for the hot-spots under the pile, ala Fukushima.
[end wild-ass speculation]
Wood didn’t invent the toasted cars, those photos are part of 9/11 imagery. All of the information is out there that she fits into her theory.
True enough, Señor Rogue. The issue has always been: this evidence is not being fitted into anyone else's theory. Purposely. They don't go there. You don't go there.
If you would kindly forgive me for thinking for myself, I would be most appreciative.
I'll forgive you for thinking for yourself when you demonstrate such: like in acquiring and reading Dr. Wood's textbook, like in not relying on axe-grinding sources [Dr. Legge, Dr. Jenkin] to form seemingly the totality of your beliefs.
If your obstinance is not agenda driven, then kindly explain why it is so opposed to "getting on the same page" physically in Dr. Wood's textbook? Surely, that is a simple-ass prequisite for being able to shred the very same page, and I'll even be helping wield the scissors when merited. Your obstinate unwillingness to go there starts running strikingly parallel to [disinfo] Phil Jayhan, [disinfo] Simon Shack, [gatekeeper] David Chandler, [gatekeeper] John Wright, and many other leaders of the 9/11 truth movement whom you've been shredding for their delphi concensus steering.
You've set yourself up, Señor Rogue, with your posting frequency and know-it-all comments and dominance over the last few months of the Truth & Shadows forum. Although I enjoy my discussions with you, if you don't step up to the plate with Dr. Wood's book as your bat, then you should probably get out of this game and STOP posting to this thread. I tire of your willful ignorance and obstinance that prevents you from evaluating the source first-hand.
That blood trickling from your nose, Señor Rogue? It didn't come from you picking boogers. It also didn't come from my copy of Dr. Wood's book thunking down upon your head. It came from the limited-offer of the gift of the very same book. You see, Señor Rogue, I'll be able to swing that gift copy at you for quite some time until you either accept it [before it expires soon -- say, tonight at midnight] or get the book on your own [which is my preference, so I don't have to spend any money or discover anything personal about you like where you live.]
And then if the game proceeds to the next level of truth consequent of you having the book to review, I'll be able to swing the book-in-your-possession at you again and again until you read it and acknowledge the nuggets of truth [and of course the errors].
If you have a gatekeeping agenda, Señor Rogue, then the prospect of a book-in-your-possession that you don't crack [ala Mr. Chandler] is going to be more dangerous to your reputation and that agenda than the no-book-at-all weasel-position [ala Mr. Jayhan and Mr. Shack] that you've been staking for months now. But both will be swung at you.
If you do not have a gatekeeping agenda, Señor Rogue, then WTF?!! The book-in-your-possession coupled with thinking-on-your-own after reading it ain't going to give you metaphorical nose-bleeds like the gushers my book-as-a-bat will measure out.
I am serious in my search for truth. This is my hobby-horse. This thread is my home-court. If Dr. Wood's textbook is to be shredded, I want it shredded rationally and legitimately through objective reasoning and actual review. Enough of your Willy-Nilly we-don't-need-no-stinking-book-to-make-our-book-review.
Señor El Once : AngelDust's analysis
Dear Mr. OneBornFree writes:
I am [more than] fairly certain that the particular photo-analysis in question originates from the September Clues research forums: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewforum.php?f=17&sid=7a6686ebb39837242db3106312ef9236 , [although I cannot find the original thread and related posts right now].
First of all, your link doesn't take you very deep at all if you aren't a Clues Forum member, like if you've been banned as I have. [Such a pity.]
Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, my posting provided the link to AngelDust's analysis:
AngelDust replied on 2012-02-21:
Señor El Once : Clues Forum have proven precious little of the 9/11 imagery to be fake
Dear Mr. OneBornFree writes:
One of the primary rules of the scientific analysis methodology is supposed to be : verify that all evidence used is certifiably genuine , _before_ any useful conclusions are attempted .
How do you know this wasn't done?
I mean, after all, Mr. Shack and his Clues Forum have proven precious little of the 9/11 imagery to be fake and in fact have had others prove that some of what Mr. Shack claims is fake in fact isn't. The glitches Mr. Shack exploits did not make it fake, and actually call into question his skills in the digital arts.
The NPT topic was discussed elsewhere.
September Clues was discussed elsewhere. Mr. Shack even participated himself.
Do you have Dr. Wood's textbook? Are you familiar with her website? Can you point out definitely the images that she uses that are fakes? [I challenged Mr. Shack and his Clues Forum to do just that. Of the five seed images, only two came back as probable. Before I could get the Crew to go any deeper into legitimately debunking Dr. Wood's efforts by proving image-after-image of potential manipulation, Mr. Shack wisely (for the disinfo he peddles) banned me. Thus, debunking of Dr. Wood's they did not do.]
You want into this Dr. Wood discussion by claiming fake images? Then you use your Clues Forum membership to get them to step up to the plate and definitely prove image-after-image of potential manipulation.
Otherwise, your postings are off-topic, and I might recommend to Mr. McKee to start ignoring them (in this thread) in the future, which will mean they'll be stuck in the moderator queue.
Señor El Once : Legal loop-holes got the case thrown out
For your illumination, Mr. Rogue.
Legal loop-holes used by the Defendants (and probably a bad lawyer for the Plaintiffs) got the case thrown out.
None of the three were "original source" for a False Claim Act (FCA) action.
An individual is, however, jurisdictionally barred from bringing a FCA action that is based upon publicly disclosed information, unless the individual bringing the action is an “original source” of the information. To be an “original source” of publicly disclosed information, a plaintiff must have direct and independent knowledge of information on which the lawsuit’s allegations are based, and have voluntarily provided such information to the Government prior to filing the action. To even attempt to assert this type of lawsuit, plaintiff must possess and be an original source of at least the substantive information publicly disclosed about the particular fraud.
...
Plaintiffs’ attempted analysis of that information constitutes pure speculation that the NIST participants were involved in a cover-up to conceal the true cause for the towers’ collapse. They merely disagree with NIST’s investigative findings, and specifically wish to reject the basic factual premise that terrorist destroyed the Twin Towers using passenger-filled airplanes as missile-like weapons.
...
Such an argument, based solely on publicly available information, could no more support a federal lawsuit to advance an alternative theory regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, or whether men ever actually landed on the moon.
You can see how this track was doomed for failure from the get-go, even before they tried to make their case on the mechanisms of destruction.
I loved how right from page 2 of the Decision Document, the judges legally frame the case in a dubious manner:
The focus of the NIST investigation was on the sequence of events "from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower."
The quoted text -- "from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower" -- came from the faulty NIST reports on the WTC destruction. However, in truth, this wasn't their charge. Here is an interesting passage from NIST.
What are the goals of NIST’s investigation of the World Trade Center disaster?
The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
...
What are the main objectives of the investigation?
The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the WTC disaster are to determine:
- why and how the WTC 1 and 2 (the WTC towers) collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft, and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
- why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation, and occupant behavior and emergency response);
- the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the WTC Buildings; and
- which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use.
So, although their charge was "why and how the WTC 1 and 2 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft", it morphed into "from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower." In other words, NIST played the slight-of-hand into stopping at "the initiation of collapse" and avoiding the "why and how of the tower collapse."
NIST goes on into covering its ass with:
Why is NIST doing this investigation?
NIST scientists and engineers are world-renowned experts in analyzing a building’s failure and determining the most probable technical cause. Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, “third party” investigator.
Additionally, under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act, signed into law in October 2002, NIST is authorized to investigate major building failures in the United States. The NIST investigations will establish the likely technical causes of the building failure and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures. The goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used.
Can NIST’s findings be used in court?
As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.
In other words, the Plaintiff's case would have been thrown out because "no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses."
So, obviously, the lawers for the defendants are going to:
[move] to dismiss the lawsuits as being frivolous, and for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Shows how the cards of the cover-up were inserted into law, which tied the courts hands in what it could listen to and how it would rule.
The motions to dismiss are granted and all three complaints are dismissed with prejudice. ... one of plaintiffs’ asserted legal claims can withstand defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Just because the case was dismissed for legal weasel mumbo jumbo, doesn't mean that anything brought up by the defendants in terms of their technical explanation was incorrect. The case was headed out the door well before they presented anything.
Señor El Once : make your arguments from the latest efforts of Dr. Wood
Dear Señor Rogue,
You write:
I hadn’t understood that this is supposed to be a book review.
In your case given your tenure here, the dominance of your postings, and your anti-Wood stance, at the very least you should be making your arguments from the latest efforts of Dr. Wood. Her website ain't that, neither are the 3 years older Jenkins criticisms of her work (e.g., website.)
You were smart enough to get to "Maxwell's Silver Hammer," I'm sure you can handle from there how to contact me off-list. Send me a ping email to validate the communication.
You point out what you see as “mistakes” on Jenkin’s part. I don’t agree with those points, and as far as “skimming” the text of those papers goes…well the word says it all doesn’t it.
Your disagreement doesn't correct the mistakes spotted just from my skimming, either.
You speak to issues like Thermobaric explosives not being capable of covering all the bases as far as the facts of the aftermath. Where do these assumptions come from Señor?
Well, they certainly don't come from anything you've presented on the subject (e.g., nada). "It's all talk, Elephant Talk..." [King Crimson reference.]
I've run across once or twice someone claiming OKC was such a device. I did not recall my impression being that it was nuclear and therefore able to account for radiation. It doesn't have anything electro-magnetic that could account for selective torching of vehicles and not flags, leaves, or trees, does it? How about the duration of hot-spots?
You speak to the issues of the sol-gel nano devices in the same dismissive terms, yet they are fully capable of leaving the tell tale signs we see on the ‘toasted cars’ – all this excitement about ‘rust’…what do you suppose the corrosive effects of such weapons would be on metals?
Again, sol-gel is something new you've clommed onto. Radiation, selective torching of vehicles, hot-spots?
As for "all this excitement about ‘rust’", not sure who you say is excited. In my opinion, this is another area where Dr. Wood makes too many comments that then lead astray. Once protective paint or other coatings has been burned or stripped from steel and iron, oxydation creates rust on the surface in a short amount of time. Most of us aren't used to it, because our metal cars are thoroughly painted and coated to prevent this.
You talk about “selective” damage in the aftermath, yet do not take into account the points I made about ‘selective’ damage from tornadoes. You seem to want to view this event as some nice clean ABC problem, when in fact it was chaotic, in an even greater way than tornadoes.
Tornados are acts of nature (that HAARP might be able to induce). Aside from the wind components, tornados have an electro-magnetic component and a atmospheric pressure component. You can see tornados touching down and going back up, zigging and zagging.
The plasmastic flow that you are trying to attribute with vehicle-torching qualities flowed everywhere it could from its central starting point at a decimating tower. It went down streets and around corners. "Uniform" is too strong a word, but compared to a tornado, the flow was uniform in where it went. It was not selective, so why was the damage?
The vehicle damage in question wasn't around corners. It was line-of-sight. Some of it was in a parking lot catti-corner and some distance away. Vehicles closer in, around corners, or shaded by buildings got heavily dusted but not torched.
We have argues the ‘hot spots’ issue time and again.
Yes indeed. It is the carousel that you keep spinning because you either evidently fail to grasp its significance or have it as an agenda item to make light of it and wave it off (as you attempt here.)
Whatever theory-du-jour you want to propose has to address this (and radiation) somehow, because it is part of the evidence.
You do not know what the effects of these sol-gel materials would have if dispersed throughout the rubble, yet you are certain they couldn’t account for it because of how they would react in a container. Again, the under rubble piles where a chaotic jumble, and wandering sizzling materials may very well have been going on for weeks.
You don't know what the effects of sol-gel are either, otherwise you would have presented them. Like tornados and Thermobaric bombs, you're throwing them out there AS A DISTRACTION.
A distraction from what? From anyone giving serious consideration to what DEW and its power source could do, and to other concepts from Dr. Wood.
I have no problems with analysis of details and evidence shredding concepts or mechanisms some stemming from Dr. Wood and some taking them a step further, ala my wild-ass speculation into nuclear powered DEW.
I do have problems with your discussion tactics. You talk about anything but. And you've spent several months now harping on Dr. Wood without the benefit of her book.
And you have yet to convince me of any substantial nuclear radiation being detected.
Nonsense. Through and through nonsense.
Need I remind you of a govt report on radiation, a shitty and unscientific one at that for its hodge-podge measuring techniques and times? Wouldn't have been necessary had there not been radiation.
Need I remind you of nuclear physicist Dr. Steven Jones stepping into the picture, accepting that govt report "hook, line, and sinker" with no backtalking or contesting, and then tweaking it further in at least two scientific-slights of hand?
How quickly you forget!
What would have been the purpose of these juking efforts if the radiation wasn't substantial (e.g., enough to consider a nuclear component)? Even with the juked numbers, they were 55 times greater than previous background levels! Dr. Jones put his damn reputation on the line to steer us away from even considering the levels that the report mentions which we have no reason to believe were the actual levels.
If the destructive mechanisms did not involve nuclear components, then correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing -- no radiation -- would have been measured above background levels.
Tell the 1st responders that their ailments don't resemble that of Hiroshima survivors! Go on. Tell them that.
The spinning of the carousel is entirely your doing.
I don’t know why it seems that I am some “Gold Medal” to be won here by changing my mind on these issues.
Convince me, or let me convince you. I'm not adverse to changing my mind. Shoot, I'd be perfectly content having all of my illusions shattered WITH THE TRUTH based on convincing evidence and analysis.
But your obstinance is of a more artificial variety. Takes a whole lot just getting you over the hurdle of exploring the source material yourself, without you turning to 2nd-hand [and sometimes dubious] sources to seemingly form your opinions, which obviously can't be in line with Dr. Wood on anything.
You are the one running at the mouth with your frequency in postings and comments on everything under the sun. You are therefore the "Gold Metal" target. That's why. Enjoy.
Señor El Once : The book is not irrefutable
Dear Señor Tom,
I have Dr. Wood's textbook and have read it. It is a worthy investment and will be a gem in your 9/11 library.
However, I disagree with the statements:
The book is irrefutable. From what I’ve read here, no one here has found anything wrong with Dr. Wood’s book.
I've found several niggly errors, which themselves aren't discrediting but are sloppy. I've got a more detailed book review above on June 4, 2012 at 1:55 pm.
You have to have four (metaphorical) magnifying glasses in hand when reading her book. One will help you validate or not the concept. The second will help you determine applicability to 9/11. The third will help you see omissions. The fourth will help you see disinformation (or where she might have been duped).
For example, free-energy from space? Probably scientifically valid. Applicable to 9/11? I doubt, because the perps would have easier means of getting the necessary energy land-based, even it meant carting in a small nuclear reactor from the navy to power DEW. Because radiation was measured at Ground Zero and both the govt and Dr. Jones went through a song-and-dance to explain it away, it becomes an omission on the part of Dr. Wood that she doesn't cover this evidence and doesn't connect this dot with a nuclear energy source. Moreover, she tries to explain away hot-spots as not existing [which is something she may have been duped by both in the govt report with thermal satellite images she sites and with other potentially faked images.]
Same sort of discussion can apply to the Hutchison effect. I have hopes it might be scientifically valid, but hopes are all they are. This is the first hurdle before determining applicability to 9/11.
Still, the book remains solid because it helps open you up to larger concepts and that the 9/11TM is gatekeeping on avoiding addressing sources for the energy requirements of pulverization and hot-spot duration.
Señor El Once : You’ve set yourself up, Señor Rogue
Dear Señor Rogue,
Coward.
I suggest you re-read these two postings of mine from yesterday: June 6, 2012 at 12:40 pm and June 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm.
You are on thin ice in this thread here.
I wrote:
You’ve set yourself up, Señor Rogue, with your posting frequency and know-it-all comments and dominance over the last few months of the Truth & Shadows forum. Although I enjoy my discussions with you, if you don’t step up to the plate with Dr. Wood’s book as your bat, then you should probably get out of this game and STOP posting to this thread. I tire of your willful ignorance and obstinance that prevents you from evaluating the source first-hand.
You did not act on my limited-time offer of the gift of Dr. Wood's book, but you also don't seem to be any closer to acquiring it on your own. Your participation on the theme of Dr. Wood's concepts -- not just on this thread but in your whole tenure here -- has been one of a distractor and disruptor.
Here are the approximate stats for 234 postings:
hybridrogue1 says: 99
Señor El Once says: 27
Craig McKee says: 15
Robert E. Salt says: 10
Robert E. Sallt says: 4
nausmr says: 18
onebornfree says: 10
Sherif Shaalan says: 8
jammonius says: 5
Adam Syed says: 2
Andrew Johnson says: 1
For someone who doesn't even have Dr. Wood's textbook, you have almost 50% of the tally.
Agenda exposed, Señor Rogue?
Get with the program. Either get yourself informed from the source so that you can make first-hand comments of Dr. Wood's work knowledgably, or I may start asking Mr. McKee to prevent you from posting to this thread any more.
Señor El Once : her work isn't quite impeccable
Señor Naus writes:
Her work is impeccable and no one has been able to refute her work, despite how hard they’ve tried. They cannot refute her work, yet want people to think they have. Now why is that?
No, her work isn't quite impeccable. No, elements of her work have been refuted. Even I do that.
But to your point, most who try to refute her work, do so very selectively. In my opinion, the elements they attack are low-hanging fruit and have more the nature of "shoot-Wood-in-foot" or of a self-destruct mechanism to the over-arching themes she presents. All disinformation has this, from Dmitri K. to September Clues to pods-on-planes to the anonymous physicist to super-duper nano-thermite.
In other words, the elements attacked were purposely placed there by Dr. Wood [wild-ass speculation: to save her ass] so that the rest of her work and collected evidence would presumably be dismissed and thrown out without further review.
To save face [with God], IMHO crafty Dr. Wood championed as directed the bat-shit crazy, but made sure to include lots and lots of unaddressed evidence with the CHARGE TO ALL READERS to listen to the evidence carefully.
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
Señor Rogue writes:
Every Wood supporter I have ever encountered repeats this assertion, practically verbatim.
What am I, chopped liver? Certainly, your new nose bleeds from my clobbering you over the head with my copy of Dr. Wood's textbook in one hand and a gift copy you never redeemed in the other proves me a Dr. Wood supporter -- albeit a slippery one --, and I have never ever made Señor Naus's assertion, let alone verbatim.
My modified Señor Naus assertion is:
[They can sometimes refute pieces of her work but] no one has been able to refute [or address] her [evidence], despite how hard they’ve tried. They cannot refute her [collected evidence], yet want people to think they have. Now why is that?
Señor Rogue goes on to write:
If this discussion can grow beyond the aspects of worship, and deal with the issues of substance, perhaps some headway can be made in communication. Otherwise we are dealing with dogmatism, and unmovable ‘set in stone’ concepts, and should begin a discussion on theology, rather than pretend we are speaking to physics here.
Written by "a retired special effects artist for cinema, a child prodigy artist, and autodidact polymath" whose dogma won't allow him to read a copy of Dr. Wood's book on his own to get at the most up-to-date substance.
Yes, yes, yes, Dr. Wood has not written the holy book by any stretch of the imagination. It is a crow-bar or nut-cracker: just a tool to get passed "dogmatism and unmovable ‘set in stone’ concepts" in our thinking and analysis (and the line drawn in the sand by gatekeeping 9/11TM leaders.)
Señor El Once : Rich Hall may end up eating humble pie on holograms
Dear Dr. Zarembka,
My research into holograms has not produced anything akin to being able to "project them." In fact, they are dependent on the holographic film or plate where the image is etched. The image appears "in front of" the film as sort of an optical illusion.
If we speculate on a drone involvement carrying such an etched plate, it has several issue:
- The etched plate would have to be on an entire hemisphere (or globe) in order to create the plane hologram that is visible from all angles.
- The hemisphre or globe would somehow need to fly (as well as cloak itself). Remember, it flew in speeds in excess of what true 757/767 can fly at low altitudes.
- Both the civilian and military radar data is based on radar ping returns, meaning something solid with a surface that doesn't "absorb" radar pings must reflect it back. Why would the two systems pick up radar returns with a 1400 foot discrepancy?
Dr. Fetzer was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support the use of holograms, and my research came up short as well.
Thus, Rich Hall may end up eating humble pie on this as well.
Señor El Once : defend those sloppy niggly errors
Dear Mr. Salt,
You're not going to want to defend those sloppy niggly errors. I don't have my book with me to give page numbers. I'll let you find them.
Here are three:
1) The fire engine with a caved in front from her website and in her book somewhere. She says: "A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine go?" That style fire truck has the engine block sitting further back. We're not seeing the engine in the dust and debris at the front because the engine isn't at that location.
2) The Ladder 3 fire truck Dr. Wood asks questions about why its front end got melted. Just recently (June 5, 2012 at 7:07 pm) I learned from Dr. Jenkins via Mr. Rogue that this engine was towed to the location where the picture was taken. Fire fighter Vincent Forras says: “Ladder 3 was totally crushed by a large block of the building and twisted into pieces.” Ergo, it wasn't melted.
3) Police car 2723. Pictures exist of it on fire in another location and at the bridge. Dr. Wood analyzes the damaged vehicles pictured at the bridge. She hints that the vehicles were hit by some "effect" at the bridge (including this car). This is quite some distance which she milks in talking about what could have done with it. Part of this was some parametric driving across some bridge who noted how hot it was. I found one reference from her in her book stating cars were towed around, and the bridge was one place. Thus, her analysis of fire damage and hints that damage occured at the distance of the bridge is in error and misframes the energy and beams.
I guess more blatant major errors are that she dismisses hotspots, and to do so, she relies on a govt report with satellite thermal data from two dates. This report was accepted unchallenged. Seems to me that, like the incomplete and unsystematic radiation report before it, this was ripe for juking. All it took was one faked thermal satellite image, or a mislabeling of the date on which it was taken.
Thanks to Simon Shack, some of the pictures that she relies on to document "water everywhere but why no steam to cook the firemen". Well, at least one of them is ripe for being manipulated. I don't think she made the case in the textbook for no hotspots. I consider it one of the "self-destruct mechanisms" built into disinformation.
She talks about how "all that glows isn't necessarily hot." Thanks to Simon Shack, we need to evaluate pictures with hydraulic equipment whether or not they are valid. Tainted images might also show glowing, but that doesn't mean it was really hot.
I don't know why she doesn't discuss govt reports on radiation. Instead of connecting those to nuclear weapons or reactors with fizzling but unspent nuclear fuel, she jumps to free-energy from space.
You write:
Where in Dr. Wood’s book is free energy from space discussed?
Free-energy is in the title of her book right on the cover. As for free-energy from space, you'll have to go to the latter chapter when she discusses Hurricane Erin. This is where she gets it from.
Aside from the fires in the upper floors where is there any evidence of hot spots?
Hello-oooo? The under-rubble fires burned for many weeks that many sources document (and that Dr. Wood ignores in her reliance on a weak govt report that tries to down-play it and might even use tainted images.) They burned without Oxygen. Hello-oooo? These hot-spots are the very secondary reason Dr. Jones was called into action. He needed to take all suspicion off of nuclear mechanisms, and he was handed super-duper nano-thermite to promote to supposedly account for fires burning without oxygen under the rubble. Kevin Ryan documents four surges over the general hot hot-spot level, representative of pockets of thermatic material getting torched.
Hutchison merely demonstrates the work of Nikola Tesla and others.
I'd like to believe that, but Dr. Wood and Mr. Hutchison do a poor job of proving squat on this subject. These are the weakest chapters of Dr. Wood's textbook. Viability hasn't been proven. And even if given the benefit of the doubt, applicability to 9/11 isn't so easy to prove in light of other mechanisms.
If you are claiming that Nikola Tesla is a fraud, please provide evidence that A/C electricity in your home-office does not exist.
Nice strawman.
Señor El Once : Señor Autodidact Polymath
Dearest Señor Autodidact Polymath writes:
However, I am continually called out as a “distractor and disruptor” by those who will not address the substance of my counter arguments here – which is in fact a technique of distracting and disrupting.
If the shoe fits. Why don't you go and count the number of postings you've made in this thread alone? It is well over a hundred now. How many had substance? How many references to Dr. Wood's website did you make?
Rather than addressing my arguments I have been met with these charges over and again, even by you.
There you go again in your misframing. I've addressed your arguments. I've even pointed out where they were correct and where they were wrong, just from a skimming.
You refuse to address issues one at a time in a fashion that is concise and focused, but continue to post these long encyclopedic posts that have to be deconstructed a piece at a time anyway. It is cumbersome and ineffective to try to drive through your obstacle courses.
"Long encyclopedic posts" have the ability "to address issues one at a time in a fashion that is concise and focused." They can focus on the subject at hand and not make lots of unnecessary branches in the flow of the discussion. To help with the focus, they are written and revised many times off-line. They are concise, because when they are posted into the forum despite their length, they are easy to ignore and skip over; they don't flood the forum with "twitter" style twatter.
Your postings aren't focused, because they can't even be relied upon to appear close to the source posting you are responding to. Despite your boastings of being an "autodidact polymath," you haven't mastered finding the right posting to reply under nor how to use the simple HTML syntax of <blockquote>.
Tsk, tsk.
"Cumbersome and ineffective?" Here's something for your "autodidact polymath" brain.
1) Use your mouse or trackball to highlight my "long encyclopedic post".
2) Press Ctrl+C to copy it.
3) Open up NotePad (or Word or equivalent) on your computer.
4) Press Ctrl+V to paste a copy of my "long encyclopedic post" into that application.
5) Type in "Señor El Once wrote: <blockquote>" at the beginning of one of my paragraphs.
6) Go back and highlight the "Señor El Once wrote: <blockquote>" that you typed.
7) Press Ctrl+C to copy it.
8) For each paragraph of my copied posting:
a) Use the arrow key to position the cursor at the beginning of it.
b) Press Ctrl+V to paste in the <blockquote>
c) Repeat for all paragraphs.
9) At the end of one of my paragraphs, type in </blockquote>
10) Highlight that instance of </blockquote>.
11) Press Ctrl+C to copy it.
12) For each paragraph of my copied posting:
a) Use the arrow key and End key to position the cursor at the end of it.
b) Press Ctrl+V to paste in the </blockquote>
c) Repeat for all paragraphs.
13) Under each paragraph that you want to respond to, type your response.
14) Remove all paragraphs from me that you don't want to respond to or repeat.
15) When finished, press Ctrl+A and then Ctrl+C.
(Optional) Press Ctrl+S to save your efforts on your computer.
16) Go to your browser and the Truth & Shadows forum to click on the "Reply" closest to my source posting.
18) Click inside the posting field and press Ctrl+V.
19) Click on the Post button.
When you work off-line with the tools readily available on your computer, it ain't "cumbersome" at all. The result is far from "ineffective." Your response could most effectively shred in a concise and focused manner each and every paragraph, sentence, or phrase of my posting with no ambiguity as to who wrote what or to what your response might be referring.
Besides being made of paper and ink, what is the substantial difference between the information on the web and this book? You have never made this clear.
The website was never completed. It even has notes from 2006 saying various pages are still under construction. Many errors from the website were fixed in the book, which is one reason why the book should be considered the final source. The book provides as near to the most definitive statements on various concepts as we can get from Dr. Wood (until addressed in version 2 of the book or something on her website.) This being said, definitive statements are few and far between, as are definitive connecting of concepts. But if you want to peg Dr. Judy Wood for saying or supporting anything as of today, the book is your nearest source. Go review my June 4 2012 at 1:55 pm posting. The correlation of pictures to map positions in her book is vastly superior to her initial attempts on the web, and worth the price alone.
P.S. Most of this posting was written before our off-list email exchange. Information within was still considered valid, but some edits were made to strip out things that won’t be applicable once you have a book in hand.
Señor El Once : errors in her analysis from her book
Mr. Salt writes:
You join a discussion about a book, and you don’t have the book with you. How convenient!
Yes, Mr. Salt. It is indeed convenient for me not to carry a large, heavy book to-and-from my place of employment by bicycle.
If you have read her book and her website, you would know that there is significant overlap between the two, although the website has more errors, is more disorganized, and can't be considered Dr. Wood's final word.
Due to that overlap as well as the fact that this is not a discussion about a book but about Dr. Wood's concepts, it can be fair game to point to things on her website particularly when I know from having studied her book that they are in both places.
You are in luck, because this posting is being made in the wee hours of the morning from home with the book in front of me. First reference to Police Car 2723 begins on page 214.
Page 214 with the Map of lower Manhattan that shows the WTC and FDR drive exhibits a MAJOR ERROR in Dr. Wood's book. She has these little flaming poof marks to flag where torched cars were. Poof marks at the car park and around WTC? Valid. Poof marks on South Street Seaport and FDR drive? Invalid. Figure 217 shows has the caption "(9/13/01) Vehicles under FDR driver were randomly tasted. This is at least 1/2 mile away from the WTC."
Collected from somewhere on the web, I have the picture of Police Car 2723 on fire, and it was not at the FDR bridge with this occured. This vehicle and many others were towed to the bridge. Yet, when analyzing the damage of the vehicles that happen to be staged afterwards at the bridge (valid), Dr. Wood makes the repeated invalid and outright wrong innuendo that the vehicles sustained their damage while being parked at the bridge when the towers were decimated.
Page 238 has Figure 247 (b) with the caption: "A badly damaged fire truck. Where did its engine and radiator go?" This is the very image from my previous posting that explains this vehicle has the engine block sitting further back.
Same page 238 and Figure 248 shows two views of Ladder 3 with the caption "Why would the front of this fire truck wilt?" I learned from Dr. Jenkins via Mr. Rogue that this engine was towed to the location where the picture was taken. Fire fighter Vincent Forras says: “Ladder 3 was totally crushed by a large block of the building and twisted into pieces.” Ergo, it wasn’t melted.
Chapter 13 "Weird Fires" and section C. "The Rumor of High Heat" on Page 262 is filled with analysis that I can't swallow. Page 271 in particular reproduces thermal images from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html . This is a report that quite frankly can't be trusted, yet Dr. Wood accepts it unchallenged in order to plant heavily the seeds: "Oh, maybe there really weren't such hot hot-spots."
Page 272 has Figure 278 (b) from James Nachtway supposedly from 9/11/2001 that is so totally ripe for having been photoshopped for its original purposes and publications. It is from a broken window framing the scene of destruction and has firemen milling about, most particularly standing in practically lakes of water. Dr. Wood superimposed the text "Location E 819°F?" The point she was trying to make was that if this was that location on 9/11/2001 with a hot spot, the firemen would be steamed cooked and ready to eat. [Likewise Figure 278 (a) with its thermal data from 9/16/2011 is ripe for such image manipulation.]
For future reference, my memory from having read cover-to-cover Dr. Wood's book and her website from one end to the other is good enough to remember what is contained in the book and her website, although it might be too poor without book in hand to recall page numbers. Thus, if I make statements about errors discovered in Dr. Wood's book from my work computer without the benefit of the book in hand, you're just going to have to trust me. Given that most participants do not have the book, such page number references aren't always helpful and could be perceived as a way for someone to obscure things.
Moreover, your lead-in statement -- "You join a discussion about a book..." -- is error filled on many levels. This is not a discussion about a book, but about what is contained within the book that also happens to be found to a great extent elsewhere. Also, I didn't join it; I am it. Without me having consistently championed various concepts and evidence best embodied by Dr. Wood's publication, there'd be no thread here for you to defend Dr. Wood under.
Mr. Salt wrote:
It’s much easier to sit at a keyboard and rewrite the book yourself. Why don’t you get J.K. Rowling to help you? Her version might be more interesting than yours.
Apologize and take this back. And open your eyes to the fact that while Dr. Wood presents tons of evidence that few others address, she too has introduced errors in her analysis, whether accidental or purposeful, that shouldn't be swallowed hook, line, and sinker.
Señor El Once : 98% of the Towers had turned to dust?
Mr. Salt writes:
I agree that at least 98% of the Towers had turned to dust including the steel.
Setting yourself up for failure, I see. What are you trying to do? Get everything in your matron-saint's book taken out of consideration because you are defending it so poorly?
You obviously have no concept of what 98% is. Visual evidence proves this wrong, particularly with the steel.
I am still championing nuclear-powered spire-based DEW that was directed to miss both the spire supporting it and the outer walls. The steel outer walls were not turned to dust, and their quantities alone disprove your 98% contention.
Now if you want to talk concrete, drywall, and other content with residual water molecules trapped and contained therein, I'd be in agreement that such content was dustified to 90-something percent.
Now if you want to talk inner-steel, like the supports going from the core to the outer walls that held the concrete floors, I am on the fence whether 90-something percent of that was dustified. Dr. Jenkins does calculations into the energy required to vaporize steel (which is about the same as dustification.) Whereas he purposely misframes it to be all of the steel in the structure, even taking a much small subset of the steel being the aforementioned inner-steel, (a) the energy would still be massive and (b) I'm not convinced that so much of it was missing from the debris.
Señor El Once : target the imagery used by Dr. Wood
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
To Mr. McKee's point about you staying on topic (Dr. Wood's concepts) and to your point (or misinformation) about the amount of image manipulation, how about you and your mates at Clues Forum doing everyone inside and outside of the truth movement a big huge favor by, say, targeting specifically the imagery used by Dr. Wood to make her case.
Take her analysis out of play legitimately: prove the tainting.
And don't be so hard on yourselves if you can't prove the tainting in each and every image, because that will simply mean after your experts' digital manipulation professional analysis that those images probably weren't tainted and can be deemed the opposite: genuine.
For all parties, it will be helpful to know the probable tainted from the probable untainted.
Focussing on the images used by Dr. Wood is a much much smaller subset of the whole class of 9/11 imagery. Why from her textbook alone, she has over 500 images, but this number includes duplicates, maps, and other charts. For that matter, you could probably target initially these two pages:
Page 5: Toasted Cars [~80 images]
Page 5a: More Toasted Cars [~30 images]
Or better yet, prove this one false:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image151.jpg
No, please prove these two false, because otherwise if not false, I'm going to use it against Mr. Salt by claiming it has more that 2% of the WTC steel in the pile, albeit WTC-4 in the lower left has insufficient quantities of tower steel to merit getting its main edifice leveled like it was.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image147.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image145.jpg
Oh, oh, oh, oh! Here's something that ought to be low-hanging fruit to prove tainted. Here are the images that she re-uses from some govt report
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/wtc-r09.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/wtc-r14.jpg
Can they be trusted? If not, where's the error?
As you can see, this is pressing for the discussion here. Time is off the essence. Hop to it! Chop, chop!
Have fun, regards, Sr. El Once
Señor El Once : EMT Cooke and the Seaport "explosion"
Returning to EMT Cooke, here is what he said:
... one of the fire balls or whatever, had to have made it as far as the South Street Seaport, because what happened at that time, it seemed like an explosion was coming from there... I thought what happened was that there was an explosion at the World Trade Center. Then I thought there was another one at the Seapport.
He didn't see anything; he assumes and he makes the analogy "it seemed like an explosion was coming from there". This is quite different from actually seeing it and there actually being an explosion. Go read it in full context (on page 5):
Also, when reading his testimony linked above, the Seaport explosion happened before WTC-1 came down (the 2nd tower to fall). Not sure the timing of the seeming Seaport explosion with respect to WTC-2 demolition.
This isn't to say that explosions might not have happened at the Seaport. Determing whether or not an actual explosion happened at the Seaport is one thing. Determining the cause of such an explosion or that the source was a beam from the towers, that is an entirely different matter.
Just from some basic googling, I came across these entries which leads me to the conclusion that EMT Alan Cooke was indeed using hyperbole and not exact language we he spoke of what seemed like an explosion was coming from the South Street Seaport.
As such, the MAJOR ERRORS in Dr. Wood's book regarding the damage vehicles and her insinuation as to what caused them, when, and specifically where they were when they were damaged STANDS.
++++++
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-27/titanic-100-year-anniversary/53792376/1
Many of the 9/11 refugees wound up at the South Street Seaport, where a small lighthouse, covered with a film of gray ash, stood witness to the catastrophe.
Engine 14's story: I got a call saying that there was a fire uptown and we were sent away from the Towers. I drove up to Sixteenth Street but there was no fire. It was a false alarm. We turned around and headed back to the towers. By now the second plane had hit. When we reached the Towers I received another call. There was a report of an explosion over near the South Street Seaport. It was chaos. The streets filled with people running around. I drove the rig over to the Seaport. We searched around for a while and couldn’t find anything. Then we heard it. The buildings began coming down. All the men were safe. No one was lost.
http://elitewatch.911review.org/7WTC.html
The fire and subsequent collapse of 7 World Trade Center has permanently damaged two substations located adjacent to the building as well as major electric transmission cables. A third substation located near the South Street Seaport also lost service. Approximately 12,000 customers are currently without electric power.
Señor El Once : Your failure to comprehend this is not her error
Dear Mr. Salt,
Stop attacking me personally with your obviously superior observational and reading comprehension skills and start being more open-minded to the legitimate ERRORS and faulty analysis found in Dr. Wood's work. You write:
Most people, when they see something glowing orange, they ASSUME it is hot. But if it is sitting on a piece of paper and the paper is not burning or have any appearance of damage, it cannot be hot. That is not an error Dr. Wood has made, that is the result of her expert observational skills. Your failure to comprehend this is not her error. It is your error, possibly due to poor observational skills.
Having been on September Clues carousel with Mr. Shack as my personal operator, I can say with confidence that his agenda is disinformation that also has many tough nuggets of truth buried through out. One such nugget is that imagery manipulation happened.
Dr. Wood can't be faulted for including in her analysis tainted images, because the same images were pumped out for all researchers to stumble over.
With regards to images of things glowing orange and sitting on a piece of paper not burning, one theory that Dr. Wood & you promote is some weird scientific phenomenon ala Hutchison Effect. I bought into that for a long time too until I found substantiation and repeatability lacking.
You need to open your mind to another possible theory: namely, the image with that SHIT in it was FAKED. Re-using your words:
Your failure to comprehend this is not her error. It is your error, possibly due to poor observational skills.
Get some perspective on the pile. It was guarded. Unauthorized photography was clamped down upon hard. Access to all areas of the pile was restricted. You can bet that dangerous areas were off-limits with enforcers backing up the orders. You can't trust a damn thing Rudy Giulani stated, and he for sure wasn't standing on any exact spot of the pile with such high temperatures.
If you want to concentrate on glowing orange liquid pouring out of WTC (assumed before it fell), fine. My reference, however, was to the hydraulic equipment pulling a glowing orange piece of material out of the pile. The veracity of that picture I'm most interested in determining.
Señor El Once : trim that bad fat in an objective fashion
Dear Señor Jammonius,
Mellow-out. You may not realize that I am the resident champion of Dr. Wood's on Truth & Shadows, albeit with many left- and back-handed techniques. I really want to believe and trust everything she writes as the gospel. (It'll be damn great to have my beliefs vindicated.) But what I really want is different from what is really true.
Because my goal is discovering truth and that is really really really what I want, I also have no problems in letting evidence and properly applied science & analysis convince me of something else, like what I previously believed is now wrong.
FTR, I am still on board with, say, some beam energy or electromagnetic fields slipping out through window slits and zapping cars like the one blowing up around Patricia Ondrovic, those in the line-of-sight catticorner parking lot, and a whole string of cars along West Broadway next to WTC-7. Those were closer and line of sight. They make sense.
The FDR bridge is a step too far. Energy would dissipate rapidly by something like the inverse of the distance squared. I'm not even sure those vehicles at the bridge, even if some were parked there throughout and damaged where they stood, were line of sight. Assuming they were and assuming some errant energy zapped them there, the ramifications for how such energy levels would affect things closer in is huge. More line of sight damage (assuming it was able to slip out through window slits and gaps in falling debris) would be evident within that 1/2 mile radius.
The MAJOR ERROR is that police car 2327 was NOT there when it was torched -- and I discovered somewhere pictures that prove this --, yet this very vehicle is held up by Dr. Wood as if it were torched at the bridge -- 1/2 mile from the towers. The Seaport explosion was at best a transformer overloading and exploding but not as a result of anything decimating the towers. She has other niggly errors that should have been corrected from her website before inserted into her book.
Sorry, Señor Jammonius. You're just going to have to deal with the fact that although Dr. Wood has lots of nuggets of truth that I am more than happy to mine, refine, re-purpose, and put on display, she also has misinformation and possibly disinformation (that I am more than open to have others help me find.) We owe it to ourselves (and the truth) to trim that bad fat in an objective fashion. We cannot and should not be promoting anything 9/11 in a religious with-us/against-us black/white all/nothing fashion. Shades of gray, cherry-pick the nuggets of truth, acknowledge the bad, move on.
In summary: Patricia Ondrovic and the car park equal good examples of something strange like an errant beam. FDR bridge equals a bad example of the same.
Señor El Once : defend her work as a non-questioning religious zealot
Dear Señor Naus,
Please read my posting to Señor Jammonius because it applies to you as well.
I am the resident champion of Dr. Wood's efforts in these here Truth & Shadows forum, but I will be your worst enemy if you try to defend her work as a non-questioning religious zealot. All you end up doing is shooting her work in the foot when trimming the fat while preserving the good are worthy.
[I'm the resident champion of September Clues, too, but was fragging Mr. Shack and his little buddy OneBornFree for their stilted arguments even before their disinformation agenda came into clearer focus for me leading me away from NPT not all that long ago.]
Nuggets of truth I am more than happy to mine, refine, and re-purpose from Dr. Wood. This has been my purpose for urging Mr. McKee to start this thread. You should be helping in this endeavor.
Nuggets of error I and you should also be happy to get quarantined, excised, and corrected in subsequent copies of Dr. Wood's textbook. If you aren't willing to consider where mistakes were made in Dr. Wood's book, well... Let's just say it doesn't reflect well on you as an objective, truth-seeking, individual and you will have the displeasure of me rubbing your nose in it.
Deal with the fact that Dr. Wood's efforts have merit, but also that occasionally her detractors make valid claims.
Stop attacking me personally and objectively review the evidence for and against.
P.S. When I finished reading Dr. Wood's textbook about a year ago, I couldn't find any errors except in consequential niggly ones. Upon more reflection and review, bigger ones have come to the forefront and I expect bigger ones still will become apparent in a rational discussion here. Doesn't mean we should stop championing her work. It just means we need to be wiser and selective.
Señor El Once : Stats on the Dr. Judy Wood Thread
2012-06-08
2012-06-06
200
hybridrogue1: 81
Señor El Once: 27
Craig McKee: 15
Robert E. Salt: 10
Robert E. Sallt: 4
nausmr: 15
onebornfree: 10
Adam Syed: 2
jammonius: 5
Andrew Johnson: 1
2012-06-07 07:00
234
hybridrogue1: 99 42%
Señor El Once: 27 11.5%
Craig McKee: 15 6.4%
Robert E. Salt: 10
Robert E. Sallt: 4
nausmr: 18
onebornfree: 10
Sherif Shaalan: 8
jammonius: 5
Adam Syed: 2
Andrew Johnson: 1
2012-06-08 15:15
346
hybridrogue1: 141 40%
Señor El Once: 47 13.5%
Craig McKee: 23 6.6%
Robert E. Salt: 21
Robert E. Sallt: 4
nausmr: 23
jammonius: 16
onebornfree: 20
Sherif Shaalan: 8
Adam Syed: 2
Andrew Johnson: 2
Señor El Once : cite in Dr. Wood’s book where she states this vehicle was “torched” at the bridge
Dear Señor Naus, you demanded:
Please cite in Dr. Wood’s book where she states this vehicle was “torched” at the bridge.
Page 216 Figure 216: Map of lower Manhatttan shows the WTC and FDR Drive a half mile or more apart. It shows "poof balls" to mark where torched cars are. Aside from the car park and around the WTC complex, she marks several at the South Street Seaport and FDR Drive.
Page 217 of WDTTG by Dr. Judy Wood:
When the debate over taasted cars arose, some argued that the wrecked vehicles under the FDR Drive had been damaged at the WTC and were then loaded up and transported to the FDR Drive for storage. But there are problems with this theory. First, there is noevidence that the moving of vehicles was done. Second, it makes no sense to load up wrecks and transported them only to dump them by a busy thoroughfare for "storage." These wrecks would then have had to be picked up yet again and transported once more. If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to the FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up under the FDR Drive as well, if it was such a good storage area. Third, governments may be stupid, but we doubt they could be this inefficient. Further, if reported, such tampering with evidence would have been declared felonious. Marks on the roadway suggest that some of these vehicles were pushed to the side of the roadway until they could later be removed.
Dr. Wood goes on to bring in testimony of EMT Cook who used the hyberpole of an explosion to explain confusion on the street near South Street Seaport.
The above passage does not state the vehicles were damaged at the bridge. But by casting doubt on whether the damaged vehicles were towed to the bridge, what argument is she making? That the vehicles were parked at the bridged and damaged in place.
When I first read the above passage from Dr. Wood, I accepted it and the direction she was headed with it, e.g., somehow the DEW beams reached South Street Seaport and FDR Drive.
However, when I was given opportunity later from other wild-goose chases and discovery research to stumble upon related images -- such as the Police Car 2723 damaged in clearly another location --, I began to change my assessment of her statements. The research I did above into EMT Cook and the hypothesis of explosions at South Street Seaport modifies my assessment further. Specifically, to Dr. Wood's statement:
First, there is noevidence that the moving of vehicles was done.
Photos of police car 2723 damaged and in another location proves this assertion wrong. If memory serves me, Dr. Jenkins provided other evidence of vehicles getting towed there.
Second, it makes no sense to load up wrecks and transported them only to dump them by a busy thoroughfare for "storage." These wrecks would then have had to be picked up yet again and transported once more. If vehicles were truly moved from the WTC to the FDR Drive, we wonder why WTC steel beams were not stacked up under the FDR Drive as well, if it was such a good storage area.
Quite the contrary, it makes a lot of sense. These damaged vehicles in their original locations may have been in the way for arriving equipment and operations. (Police Car 2723 appears to have been blocking an intersection, as police cars are known to do during emergency operations.)
Also, you can make much more efficient use of towing resources. In a given short period of time, a single towing resource can tow more vehicles ~1/2 mile (to a temporary staging area under the FDR) than the number of vehicles it can tow >1/2 mile to a more permanent location.
Dr. Wood's wondering into why steel beams were not stacked up under the FDR is daft. She evidently ran out of arguments and needed to pad the paragraph.
Third, governments may be stupid, but we doubt they could be this inefficient.
As already proven, it was very efficient in a short period of time to use limited towing resources first to clear away damaged vehicles obstructing streets from arriving equipment by using a staging area close by.
Further, if reported, such tampering with evidence would have been declared felonious.
Tampering with evidence was par for the course.
Marks on the roadway suggest that some of these vehicles were pushed to the side of the roadway until they could later be removed.
Marks on the road indicate to me that tow truck drivers dumped their loads haphazardly before returning to move other damaged cars from critical areas. A more efficient piece of equipment came by later to push the vehicle pile together and out of the way. Nothing fishy there.
The question remains: were any vehicles parked under FDR or at South Street Seaport while they got damaged? Here's the closest thing I come across.
http://elitewatch.911review.org/7WTC.html
The fire and subsequent collapse of 7 World Trade Center has permanently damaged two substations located adjacent to the building as well as major electric transmission cables. A third substation located near the South Street Seaport also lost service. Approximately 12,000 customers are currently without electric power.
This leads to the following remembrance:
http://storiesconnectloveheals.com/2011/09/13/reflections-on-911-engine-company-14-and-divine-providence/
Engine 14's story: I got a call saying that there was a fire uptown and we were sent away from the Towers. I drove up to Sixteenth Street but there was no fire. It was a false alarm. We turned around and headed back to the towers. By now the second plane had hit. When we reached the Towers I received another call. There was a report of an explosion over near the South Street Seaport. It was chaos. The streets filled with people running around. I drove the rig over to the Seaport. We searched around for a while and couldn’t find anything. Then we heard it. The buildings began coming down. All the men were safe. No one was lost.
My speculation is that the explosion heard by the people to send them running into the street in chaos -- chaos as reported by both EMT Cook and Engine 14 -- may have been the loss of the South Street Substation.
By the way, I would like to amend a statement I made earlier:
The Seaport explosion was at best a transformer overloading and exploding but not as a result of anything decimating the towers.
My amendment is:
The Seaport explosion was at best a transformer overloading and exploding but not as a result of DEW beam hitting it as part of decimating the towers.
Señor Naus goes on to write:
It appears you are imagining errors and then accusing Dr. Wood of the errors that you actually made. I believe that is called a strawman, in the most innocent interpretations.
The error has been proven to Dr. Wood's and not my imagination.
Señor Naus goes on to write:
The same is true for El Once’s false claim that Dr. Wood’s book refers to “free-energy [beams] from space,” which it does not.
I refer you to Chapter 10. Holes which begins on page 197. Dr. Wood writes:
[Page 198] Buildings 5 and 6 had holes in them that were quite mysterious. Because of the verticality of these holes, they could not have been caused by conventional explosives. WTC6, an eight-story building, lost about half of its volume and yet there was remarkably little debris left at the bottom of the building.
...
In Figure 192, notice how straight the vertical holes are that cut down through WTC6. While there is abundance of aluminum cladding on the roofs of buildings 5 and 6, there is little or none in the holes.
...
[Page 204] Figure 199 and 200 both contain the same overhead view of WTC6. This photo shows not a single cut-out but a cluster of vertical cut-outs that coalesce together and form a scalloped border. No collapsed floors are visible at the bottom of the hole, and the heart of the building is gone. A bomb cannot do this. The debris inside the building is minimal and all at ground level, no deeper.
...
The vertical cut-outs in WTC6 approximate the shape of circles (viewed from above), each with a diameter of approximately 24 feet.
[Page 211] What may we make of this? Neither controlled demolition nor thermite (much less burning airplane fuel in the towers) can explain both of these anamalous holes and the fact that there is no pancaked debris at the bottom of them.
In short, something else must now be considered as the mechanism of destruction, something that, quite literally, bored holes down through the buildings, and something, also, that dustified the twin towers.
In the conclusion to chapter 20. Tesla-Hurricane-Manetometer Correlation, Dr. Wood writes:
[Page 451] In today's culture of over simplification and standardization multiple-chice testing, many have an impulse to name a known technology (e.g., thermite, TNT, RDX, nukes, progressive collapse, HAARP, scalar weapons, torsion physics, Nazi Bell, etc.) instead of looking at the evidence tat the use of one technology or another has left behind.
...
Some people feel they are being more scientific when they use the name of a known technology to describe unknown phenomena, but the opposite is true. Such an approach omits evidence tat does not fit any known technology.
Thus, touché and well played, Señor Naus.
Crafty Dr. Wood probably never explicitly writes in her book: "free-energy [beams] from space."
However, what innuendo is she making when she talks about (1) the verticality of holes coupled with pulverized debris for WTC5 and WTC6, (2) Chapter 19. Earth's Magnetic Field on 9/11, and (3) Chapter 20. Tesla-Hurricane-Manetometer Correlation?
Señor Naus charges
For whatever reason, El Once is obsessed with declaring Dr. Wood to have “MAJOR ERRORS” even if he has to be dishonest to do so.
I have an obsession, Señor Naus. That is so true, so true.
My obsession is with finding truth, even if they be tiny nuggets of truth. Part of this obsession leads me into works that others have labeled "crazy, nutty, loony" as well as "disinformation."
Granted, I may have used a bit too much hyberbole when I labeled blatant mistakes in Dr. Wood as "MAJOR ERRORS" or even "major errors." The truth is that the errors themselves are rather minor, except that they have a major (or even MAJOR) impact in the innuendo that Dr. Wood drives at.
However, I am not being dishonest in pointing out the errors.
You tell me how ignoring, side-stepping, or downplaying the validity of the errors plays into honesty, yours in particular.
If you really wanted to prove your devotion to Dr. Wood's textbook, you should help in the discovery of such errors so that they can be contained, quarantined, and even excised in subsequent revisions to Dr. Wood's legacy publication.
Señor El Once : Each building should be viewed independently
Dear Señor Salt,
I urge you to use caution when trying to wrap the destruction of all of the buildings in the WTC complex under the same umbrella of a destruction mechanism. Each building should be viewed independently. Yes, we will find overlap in how certain buildings were likely pulverized, but we may also find "overkill" and "redundancy" in the form of additional "backup" and "secondary" mechanisms at play (e.g., nano-thermite, conventional explosives, etc.)
WTC-7 seems like the odd-man out, as if its destructive mechanisms failed to decimate as planned at or about the decimation of either tower. The job couldn't be completed until late in the day and very suspiciously in terms of media and emergency service foreknowledge. Had it gone down earlier, we wouldn't have had the late Barry Jennings as a survivor and telling us about explosions at lower levels of WTC-7 before either tower fell.
Señor El Once : defense of Dr. Wood's textbook is so stilted
Dear Mr. Naus,
Great weasel-words! Based on your faulty summary of my posting, it becomes clear why your defense of Dr. Wood's textbook is so stilted. You understand neither.
The following repeated statement from you lacks qualifiers:
El Once has not been able to identify even one error in Dr. Wood’s book...
"...that Mr. Naus will acknowledge as errors" is the missing qualifier.
You asked for details and specific page numbers. I gave you such in just this starting gambit. You address nothing I have brought up except with ad hominems about what I imagine or project. Beautiful.
So that you are clear on what my agenda is. My objective is to trim the fat from Dr. Wood's work and to preserve the nuggets of truth. This is far different from others who point out errors, because they want guilt-by-association from the errors they find to take the rest of her work & evidence off the table. Nope. That ain't my intention at all. I want to mine, refine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth -- if they exist (and I believe they do) -- from the dross of disinformation.
Now if you want anything at all left on the table of your matron-saint's textbook from the trashing that is going to happen in the near future, I suggest you assist in noting and preserving the nuggets of truth. Just as importantly, recognize that Dr. Wood is only human and makes mistakes. Errors have been and will be found. You do truth, Dr. Wood, and yourself no favors if you refuse to acknowledge them. If we are lucky, those mistakes and errors will be few and far between. But by being honest about the good, the bad, and the ugly, we will go a long way into vindicating Dr. Wood's efforts. The trimmed fat version will be hard for the thinkers of the world to ignore.
Señor El Once : under the guise of objectiveness, we should still consider Dr. Jenkins efforts
Dear Mr. Jammonius,
Nearly all of your points I have made to Mr. Rogue at one time or another since he entered this forum several months ago and when I had the opportunity to squeeze off a Dr. Wood reference. Thank you.
However, under the guise of objectiveness, we should still consider Dr. Jenkins efforts, just as I'll be having Mr. Rogue consider Dr. Wood's. In fairness, Dr. Jenkins in his dated materials does bring up some valid points. Just not enough in my opinion to make debunking Dr. Wood a slam-dunk. And often times he bites off just a tad too much, like his energy calculations into total steel vaporization. It is a framing into the ridiculous.
On the theme of valid points by Dr. Jenkins as well as the timing of their individual publications, one could view a weakness in Dr. Wood NEWER textbook that she didn't devote independent NEW chapters to address some of the OLD criticisms. Moreover, some of her website re-use should have under gone more thought and analysis via feedback from others. I was disappointed to see errors from her under-construction-since-2006 website more or less carried over.
For example, take the criticism of the cars being towed to the FDR bridge. The main basis for my criticism of this nature is police car 2723 that I found (say, in 2011) pictorial damage of it in another location. Dr. Jenkins may have had other substantiating information in 2007 for the same charge of vehicle towing. Dr. Wood re-purposed information from her website and gave short change to addressing those points, leaving her flank open.
In fact, as given to Mr. Naus on Sunday, I found her attempts to dismiss the towing of cars to the FDR bridge as a staging area to be pretty weak. Doing dishes or moving your household are two tasks that often result in objects being handled & moved multiple times before finding a home.
Señor El Once : Police Car 2723
Dear Mr. Jammonius,
I agree with what you say. I was giving Dr. Jenkins the benefit of the doubt that he might have more substantial references to towed cars. If you've proven that he didn't (and I don't doubt), more power to you.
Later, you write:
Senor Once then tops everything off by referencing a fake photo that surfaced in 2011. However, the reference was brief and oblique as I am sure even someone as dedicated to trying to say the toasted cars on FDR drive were towed as Senor is, will not subject this thread to fake photos; will you Senor? If you do, I am not going to respond to that. I am not going to dignify a tactic like that with a response as it does not deserve one.
Hold on a second here. What fake photo? What are you talking about? Don't put words into my mouth.
Okay. I just did some googling. Here is a thread on JREF that talks about car 2723. Here is a link to one of the photos with some red mark-up indicating it might have been in the intersection near the Millienium hotel.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/car2723wtc.jpg
Here is one of the pictures of the same police car under the FDR bridge:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/car2723fdrb.jpg
In addition to the first photo (that I have without the red mark-up) and the second photo (at the FDR Bridge), I have a third night photo of Car 2723 on my home computer. [Not sure where I found them. Could have been mined from some PDF I acquired or some website.] In this 3rd photo, the street under and around the car is clean, which to me indicates that it is in yet a third location. The driver's door is mangled like we see in Dr. Wood's photo's at the FDR bridge, yet the street under the car is dusty with different debris than the other two pictures. My speculation is that the door was damaged in moving it from the intersection near the Hotel to (one of many locations?) until it gets the location of my 3rd picture show and before it reached the parking spot along the FDR Bridge.
Until proven otherwise, I'll consider these pictures valid and not faked. To be honest, the thought had never entered my mind as to question their voracity (despite my time with Mr. Shack.)
Meanwhile, to the discussion we're having here, just the two images linked above proves that at least one vehicle was towed to the FDR Bridge. Not a big deal until we consider how Dr. Wood tries to brush it off and leave the lingering thought that its pattern damage was obtained while parked at the bridge. It is this lingering innuendo that I want squashed.
Señor El Once : The hollowness of the towers is not a concept that I am promoting
Two related arguments to the missing content are made by Phil Jayhan's Let's Roll Forums. One is that after the 1993 bombings when tenants started moving out, office space was pre-demolitioned. In other words, everything including the kitchen sink was removed from certain levels when tenants vacated. Something like this would happen anyway, but to a much lesser degree and it was usually followed by construction to prepare for new tenants. No new tenants, no new construction.
This is something I could well be duped by.
The second argument is one that hasn't duped me yet and seems more aimed weakly at DEW. This argument suggests that the towers were never finished inside and were never fully occupied. Speculation is that the Rockefellars ran out of money and realized that they didn't have to finish out every square inch on their two mammoth symbols of capitalism while maintaining bragging rights; they could fake it. In fact, they could cherry-pick some prestige floors to deck out (the mezzanine levels, the restaurant, maybe the top 20 or 30 floors, certain lower level floors, etc.) The organization of the express elevators to mezzanine levels and local elevators servicing groups of floors from there would certainly make it difficult for workers at the towers to "accidentally" get to a series of floors that were empty.
Moreover, completion of that much office rental space would have sent the market for such into a dive, so controlling when (and if) such office rental space became finished and available would have been desireable.
It is also known that the govt had many front companies hosted in the WTC towers: there in nameplate only to give them a physical address.
[The weakest and lamest point into this genre of disinfo is faulty interpretation of a 1972 image with the sun streaming through. It exhibits refraction and light bending around objects. Based on this, they imply there is nothing to see on each level because there was nothing there. But something else you don't see are the 60cm wide exterior columns on 100 cm centers because the sun light refracts around it, just as it would cubicles and other things. ]
http://letsrollforums.com/imagehosting/34c2d85c42aab2.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/2674952033_2013551544_b.jpg
The hollowness of the towers is not a concept that I am promoting. Some of it like predemoltion efforts over many years may have merit, but probably not to the hollowness extent that Phil Jayhan pushes it. Still, it is worthy to consider when looking for expected evidence in the pile (e.g., office furnishings) and not finding it.
Back in the 1960's, Operation Northwood included fake victims. Photoshop, face morphing, and social media would make such tasks even easier in 2001. I believe some merit exits to the the concept of simVictims, but not to the extent the Mr. Shack and Mr. Jayhan push it. SimVictims dovetails nicely with the ruse of empty towers, getting conspiratorial buy-in (only primarily simVictims will be hurt on purpose), and a sufficiently high death-toll to move the giant USA into war.
One of the alternatives to empty towers is that DEW dustified it, right? Empty and pre-demolished towers reduces big time the energy requirements.
Of course, if DEW didn't do it, then nano-thermite (and a host of other incendiaries) dustified it, right?
Whatever structure and contents were present, they were decimated pretty thoroughly: some amount of reinforced concrete slabs with rebars, some amount of steel floor plans, some amount of steel floor trusses.
Señor El Once : insurance companies did pay, it was not without some return on investment
2012-06-12
{This was never posted to any forum.}
According to Duff:
The official finding as to rationale for the 9/11 attacks was to cheat insurance companies out of billions.
Maybe this is the clue that many of the other points are wrong, too.
Whereas insurance companies did pay out billions and Silverstein tried to get $7 some billion for his $50 million investment but got in 2007 only $4.55 billion = $4,550 million = 91 x ($50 million). Ninety-one times your original investment was his return; not too shabby! But I digress...
Whereas insurance companies did pay, it was not without some return on investment of their own. Rather than single-payer health care (Obama's campaign promise taken off the table after Bilderberg) or universal health care, we get Obama Care which mandates that everyone PAY for health insurance. The number of customers this would add to the rolls of health care insurance providers would make any 9/11 payouts a pretty good investment.
Let us also not forget that Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and other financial houses were peddling insurance. The payouts they got were payoffs making it worth their while to not complain about the cash flow of insurance claims relating to 9/11.
No comments:
Post a Comment