Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 1: Slippery Character in this Drama

---

Hide All / Expand All

Ralph Showman : the new skipper of the Milky Way Express

2012-01-23

Craig, Judy Wood is not a serious person, unless you think the total dilation of one’s pupils is a feather in one’s cap. If you were paying attention the past 5 years you might have noticed that she’s the new skipper of the Milky Way Express to Nowhere with the infamous “no planes” crowd, who have done more to thwart the truth movement than any other cabal. If they aren’t Cointel-pro then they’re turning the FBI green with envy with their charade.

Anyone lined up with the dingbats who insist against all evidence that jets didn’t hit the Twin Towers deserves the ridicule and scorn that Dr.Judy receives. Judy Wood is way, way out there and not to be engaged except to drop kick her through the goal posts from the 50-yard line.

---

Señor El Once : 9/11 pushed the envelope in terms of duping a nation

2012-01-23

Dear Mr. Showman,

In your statements about "no-planes" and Dr. Judy Wood, I encourage you to live up to your name, and "show me, man." Otherwise, you're just spouting ad hominems. Humorous, but ad hominems, nonetheless. Please refrain from such going forward, or whatever point you have to make will suffer.

Do you have Dr. Wood's textbook?

If the answer to the above is negative, you won't fair very well going forward.

If the answer to the above is afirmative, the follow-up questions are: have you read it and did you understand it?

Let the above form the starting point for debate on this subject. Let's "get ourselves on the same page," as it were.

I do not hold up her textbook as the gospel on 9/11, and my views now deviate in certain areas. Still, her book contains many truths and much evidence that need to be addressed by whatever conspiracy-theory-du-jour is promoted. Before I was even 1/2 finished, I was recommending the book, and this with the knowledge that the 2nd half could be total disinformation. My reasoning was that if it turned out to be such, we'd still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our grandkids how our generation was played. Turns out, however, that nothing in her book stands out as disinformation to me. I encourage you to find such disinformation if you can (and set me straight), but just as importantly to recognize the nuggets of truth that the others won't address. Her book contains the best correlation of the pictures of damaged buildings to marked mapped positions, so that us non-NY-ers can understand the aftermath.

Final point on this subject before you go back to your trenches for more research. Neither convential demolition explosives nor nano-thermite explosives can explain the pulverization of the towers (a massive energy sink), the duration of underground fires (many weeks), the anomalous radiation measurements, first responder ailments, the damage to vehicles on various streets... Until the energy equations of the destruction are balanced (like with nuclear-powered DEW - my deviation from other theories), those theories not addressing the energy sink become examples of "govt infiltration and leading of the opposition."

As for no-planes, you wrote:

[those] who insist against all evidence that jets didn’t hit the Twin Towers...

All evidence is the issue. I encourage you to do some research into what exactly all of that evidence is. The airplane parts on the street? Couldn't even be verified by serial number or otherwise to match the reported plane. Other plane parts? How convenient that the spire-based-DEW within the towers pulverized content, so precious little of anything -- airplane parts, landing gear, office furniture, humans -- could be uniquely identified and picked from the ground zero pile.

Pixels on the telly? I'll wager right now that this makes up 90% of your belief that real planes hit the towers. If this is your evidence, kindly give it due scrutiny. If memory serves me, there are about 44 video clips of the 2nd plane. Yet they aren't without errors. They are inconsistent one video to another with regards to flight path, thereby proving that video manipulation happened. Many of the clips are inconsistent within themselves. For example, the pixels of the planes flew at 1/2 mile above sea level where the air is heavy and resistive at speeds in excess of what real aircraft were rated for at high altitude; by rights, real planes flying would have been hard to control, if the resistive sea-level air didn't tear them apart. Physics defying, those plane pixels were.

For another example, take the miraculous four stage zoom-in from a helicopter several miles away that just so happens to be zoomed in and focused on WTC-2 when the pixels of the 2nd plane enter the frame. This lead to the nose-in/nose-out anomaly (that they tried to cover for with a fade-to-black as well as with totally obnoxious banners consuming the bottom third of the screen -- why haven't they released raw footage without the banners?). This shot also lead to the reverse-play/zoom-out that doesn't show the plane in the zoom-out shots where we can easily calculate it to be.

Crash physics is a major flaw. Since when does aircraft-light & thin aluminum slice building steel like butter to leave a cartoon outline out-to-the-wingtips of an airplane on the building, like a Road-Runner cartoon? Crash physics would have been too hard to model, particularly in all of the desire "amateur" footage (that wasn't). So again, we see how these plane pixels were physics defying.

The media played us on 9/11, and they continued to milk it with every suppression of speakers from the 9/11 Truth Movement, with every talk-show ambush of such alternative theories, and with every "kooky, loony, crazy" label.

Here is a great video from Conan O'Brien showing you how the media gets lock-step into its views. The interesting part starts about 1:23 when Conan introduces how "News Stations around the country are putting their own unique spin on it."



Now backup. From the day of 9/11 before the dust had even settled, the media was telling us who did it (Osama bin Laden) and how (jet impacts, jet fuel fires, melted steel, weakened structure, total building failure and collapse). They repeated this endlessly. The movie "Pearl Harbor" released in May 2001 taught us how we were supposed to react as heroes when our nation was attacked, so the logos of the news sources constantly paraded America at War, America under Attack, The War on Terror, etc.

Yep, 9/11 pushed the envelope in terms of duping a nation. No-planes remains on the table, as does Dr. Wood's excellent textbook.

When I believed 9/11 was Inside Job [Long]

“When did you come to believe that the 9/11 official story was false and that 9/11 was an inside job – and what piece or pieces of information convinced you?”

My detractors will peg me with "a track record of gullibility," because I had open-minded and tolerant tendancies developed well before 9/11 (e.g., punk rock, international news, art & foreign films, world music, Christian Science) that allowed me to objectively consider viewpoints and evidence that ran contradictory to "steamrolled" mainstream media views. I did not actively pursue alternative theories of historical events (e.g., JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC), but would hear them out when presented and was astute enough to see where they supplied a plausible missing piece of the puzzle.

The year 2001 was part of an era when I read the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) daily, listened to NPR, obtained more and more news from the internet, and didn't watch televison except in passing. The political theater and the eventual appointment of George Bush by the Supreme Court to the Presidency in 2000 had my cackles up and arrayed against the neo-cons, and rightfully suspicious of each and every one of their endeavors in the eight months of his pre-9/11 tenure, including tax cuts, no child left behind, privatizing social security, and sabor-rattling with the Chinese over the shot-down US spy plane. As real-time as reputable newspapers can get, the CSM informed me in the summer of 2001 of the coordinated assassinations via diverse covert means but similar global agenda-advancing outcomes of various tribal Taliban leaders.

Despite my engineering school attendance being in the 1980's, by Tuesday noon (MST), September 11, 2001, I retained in my noodle enough of Sir Isaac Newton's laws to understand while viewing the WTC towers' pulverization on the internet that this required a massive and strategically controlled influx of energy in order to account for the thoroughness, symmetry, and speed of their extermination. In fact, these features flagged major flaws in the extremely efficient operation: coincidence, overkill, and thoroughness that would be unnecessary for achieving the alleged goals of "outside/foreign terrorists" and would be next to impossible without inside access and extensive preparation time within the towers. My back-of-envelope calculations of the energy requirements and study of the demolition videos screamed to my educated mind at the time: micro-nukes. The aversion of newspaper and television analysis to properly frame the physics energy of 9/11 on the towers' controlled pulverization (nevermind in hindsight how they suppressed WTC-7 and other buildings for years) was another form of shock-and-awe to (science) educated minds regarding how truth would be trampled to advance a political agenda on a global scale.

In my (non-political) online playgrounds of that period when I went off-topic, the main concern I opined were against the overly patriotic (and un-Christian) sentiments that blindly and vengefully advocated ruthless bombing and invasion of Afghanistan (and then Iraq), where losses on each side would surely exceed the victims of 9/11 in NYC. Why the rush to war, when the proof of the 9/11 scapegoats was ironically both flimsy and a bit too perfect in their packaging? If indeed they were mostly Saudi hijackers, why were we going after Afghanistan? What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Rhetorical questions the media would dance around to avoid exposing their ignorance of physics. My dismay and consternation was not focused on the shock of the tower pulverization, but on the beating war drums and the media hype that were driving us into war at the expense of our liberties.

Television law dramas hit home "means, motive, and opportunity" as factors that convict the guilty in the courts. If "war is a racket" according to General Smedley Butler, then motive becomes clear regarding 9/11 and its purpose as part of a larger global agenda regarding the need to "take out the Taliban and Saddam" and sold to America in the blue hue of television screens with red-white-and-blue flag lapel pins, Freedom Fries, and "America Under Attack" slogans.

When the fully-written and fleshed-out USA PATRIOT Act was knee-jerked launched at Congress in the weeks after 9/11, trend lines connected these dots with that of the summer assassinations of Taliban leaders, of our rush to war with Afghanistan despite Saudi "perpetrators", of the Washington D.C. snipers (furthering shock-and-awe in the public), of the Anthrax attacks, and of the exceptionally well-coordinated & well-executed 9/11 events themselves. Motive was clear, as was who was benefitting.

Not to pat myself on the back too vigorously for my insider conspiracy conclusions forming around November 2001, but that was about when I believed the official story was false and we were being played by a "big lie:" shortly after the "bi-partisan" and overwhelming passage of the USA PATRIOT Act by Congress without having read it and after the Afghanistan invasion. Other real-time events and some 52 presidental scandals that the Bush Administration just kept piling on did nothing to dispel those dark thoughts about ruling factions within my government. The never-changing, never-faultering, never-wavering official story became incongruent with independently exposed 9/11 details based on physics and science.

I may have been an early adopter of 9/11 insider conspiracies, but I was not an active one (until 2008). I entertained hopes that media attention to the growing mass of 9/11 truth activism would turn the tide and usher in new leadership. No, the media labels "crazy, loony, and insane" were quick, consistent, and coordinated to smear doubting Thomas's and maintain the cover-up.