No real Americans will be hurt on purpose in this film production

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : No real Americans will be hurt on purpose in this film production

2011-01-27

Dear Mr. McKee,

My recollection of details in Operation Northwoods is fuzzy. But I seem to recall the premise of an airplane full of supposedly college students on their way to some chartered South American adventure when the Cubans shot them down. Different options were presented in how this could be handled. Included in this was the option that the college students were fake, never real, composite. An unmanned and passenger-empty aircraft would be shot down.

If you think about it and low-risk options, simVictims is clearly the way to go, and they knew this in the early 1960's. You can control their back-story to make it all the more emotional. Maybe they were all from the same university to give the tragedy some impact. You hire actors on a long-term contract to portray members of a select number of families. You get two points if those actors can serve double-duty in advancing some agenda in beating war drums or promoting TSA security measures. "My loved one might not have been murdered by Muslim Terrorists on 9/11, if our airports would have had radiation-poisoning scanners in place to view our private parts and detect those nasty box-cutters before they were smuggled onto the plane and used against... [*sniff* *wipe tear*] my precious Pooky. [*sob*]"

The 9/11 simVictims is a topic that hasn't been addressed very much here. I already have enough to handle riding my two trick ponies: DEW and video fakery. However, simVictims is something I've kept an eye on and has some merit.

Think about it. How soon did those supposedly impromptu memorial walls appear in NY? And how stupid were they? I mean, the WTC has some appearance of being leveled by nuclear explosions to the extent the 1st responders called it "Ground Zero", and here we have families posting pictures of their loved ones as if they were a lost pet, "Missing since 9/11, have you seen this person?" Worse, many of the missing-persons flyers had issues, like: couldn't the family have found a decent photo of their loved one? I forget the "news" organization who decided to make a project out of it by photographing those flyers into a larger web collection. Couldn't they have been more responsible and contacted the families for the original photo or different photos?

Why do so many images look like they've been poorly photoshopped? Why do the backstories on some of the individual victims get so weak? Why were not of the families of "(sim)Victims" from the planes never part of the 9/11 Families? Why are there such discrepencies in the social security death index and in families who collected settlement money?

Worst of all, when these web memorials and collections are explored further, weird things are discovered. I particularly like the anomalies in the data encoded in some of the images. They indicate that some of these were established prior to 9/11, as in the obituary and memorial efforts were being photoshopped and prepared before these alleged people had a deathly serious real need for one.

Much of this is covered on www.SeptemberClues.info.

Let's Roll Forums also has interesting threads relating to simVictims. This might be a nugget of truth to mine from them; it might not. (Disclaimer: My opinion of Let's Roll Forums isn't very high after they banned me for my "Mr. [so-and-so]" honorifics; I kid you not. The actual context was that the tag-teaming regulars were losing in a major way in getting a thread on Dr. Judy Wood's textbook shutdown with the usual "kooky, loony, crazy" references from the lofty position of not having or reading said textbook. My offer of paying for such a book to help them overcome such a hurdle was rejected. My reading of Dr. Wood was also coming dangerously close to proving hollow the major LTF promoted premise of hollow towers.)

When you start exploring this simVictim rabbit hole, you'll discover lots of anomalous things in the alleged victim pool.

Think about it further. It would be much easier to get *wink* *wink* unstated approval from leaders and actors for a Hollywood-scripted ploy to motivate the American public into flag-waving and volunteering to exercise emperial might in snagging Middle East riches and resources (as outlined by the PNAC agenda) if the proposal were presented with the claims:

"No real Americans will be hurt on purpose in this film production, although some minor collateral damage can be expected by real victims in the wrong place at the wrong time as buttons are pushed as an unknowable unknown that we can't predict. However, those real victims' families will be handsomely compensated monetarily, while the dearly departed loved one is propped up with the simVictims as... [*purse lips to suppress frown*]... a brave hero [*take a finger to wipe tear from eye*], a fighter-to-the-end, who would want America to extract the full force of its military might to render American-kick-ass justice against those evil evil-doers, for whom no amount of rendition or torture is too much!!!"

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Chandler Straw-Man

2012-01-27

Dear Mr. hybridrogue1,

I'll answer your 8:08 pm and 9:42 pm postings from January 26, 2012 at the same time. You wrote:

I don’t recall mentioning Mr. Chandler in my remarks here.
I get this strawman bit every time I encounter a Judy Wood advocate.

You lost me there. I don't know why other Dr. Wood advocates bring up Mr. Chandler "every time" (or at all, except that he is the Mr. High-School Physics fallback guy.)

BUT I do know why I brought up Mr. Chandler. And it isn't a strawman.

I highly respect Mr. Chandler's videos that apply high school physics to prove the OCT wrong. Due to his prominence in the movement and his interest in physics, I approached Mr. Chandler through cyberspace to get him to expand his analysis and contemplate the energy requirements of content pulverization, and how milli-nukes or other mechanisms might more accurately explain it. He essentially refused, saying it was outside his area of expertise. In our protracted exchanges and after I jumped from milli-nukes to DEW, I was given the honor of purchasing a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook and having it sent to Mr. Chandler as a gift, with some minor conditions attached (that he rejected.) The minor conditions amounted to a good, bad, and ugly book review on Dr. Wood's work and a promise that if the book is found worthy, he would either loan his copy to or purchase a new one for, say, Mr. Cole; if the book is not found worthy, then he should probably give it to someone who would appreciate it.

I tried to get to Mr. Cole directly, but Mr. Chandler was his gate-keeper, writing:

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.

When I pursued this further with my request to hear from Jon Cole himself, Mr. Chandler wrote:

Jon's response was, "Don't even waste time responding." I did anyway. I gave you links that adequately contain our shared response.

I shredded those links, mostly because they apply to old material that has been floating around the internet for years and did not apply specifically to Dr. Wood's new textbook. This, by the way, is the same shredding I give the Dr. Jenkin's link you provided. Maybe you should look up what he does for a living, who he works for, the research he does. Surprise, surprise! He appears to be involved with the very research he wants to disabuse Dr. Wood's of.

You wrote:

First of all let us address the partially melted cars that were some how hit even though miles away according to Wood. A close examination of this claim is proven to be totally false.

I agree partly. I, too, recently discovered pictures of the police car (burned in anomalous places, trunk open, car number on trunk) from another location other than under the bridge. In more than one place, Dr. Wood inferred that the leaked EM-(or whatever energy) fields were powerful enough to affect vehicles at the bridge and pointed out this police car as an example, as well as others at the bridge. I discovered proof that this police car wasn't at the bridge when it was damaged; it was towed to the bridge. (I believe Dr. Wood mentions the possibility of the cars being towed there, but not everywhere she used the picture thereby leaving a false impression.)

It remains on the table that this police car was damaged in an anomalous way (that nano-thermite still can't explain). It actually makes me happy to learn that it was closer to the towers when it was damaged. It scales down the energy of the emitted field and that it didn't reach the bridge, while also driving home line of sight (like an EMP) remains valid.

It is obvious even to the casual viewer that those cars lined up on Woodrow Wilson Drive were towed there and did NOT receive the damages at that spot. Furthermore there are published accounts of the towing of the vehicles there.

Agreed.

I ... want to point out that when one finds one situation misrepresented, it is reasonable to assume that the other issues that person addresses are of equal merit – having none. This is standard jurisprudence.

Bullshit. Your assumption is not reasonable. One situation does not represent the whole. Mistakes happen.

What it really does is cause a reasonable person to want to validate each topic on a case-by-case basis, plotting data points, and building a trend line. Even when the overwhelming trend line might point in a certain direction -- as disinformation tends to do --, plenty of nuggets of truth are scattered throughout that need to be mined, refined, and cherished.

I wrote:

The first issue of steel dustification is that the trusses — which ran from the box columns to the core and supported each floor — are woefully under-represented in the debris pile, as are desks, cubes, computers, toilets, airplane parts, etc. If there was steel dustification, it happened to internal content and not the exterior box columns.

You wrote:

Are you even vaguely familiar with the architecture of the WTC Towers? The internal core is the ONLY area of the towers construction using ‘box columns’, as these structures were of what is called a “tube” design, the outer structures were of interlocking steel facial members that were in turn faced as well with outer aluminum. In other words there were no ‘box columns’ making up the outer structure.

Ah, we have a slight misunderstanding. The "wheat-chex" structure of the outer walls was composed of "box columns" (also "tube" design) assembled together into groups of three before being hoisted into position and connected with the other assembled "wheat-chex" items. Obviously, the "box columns" I was referring to were smaller than the ones you were referring to in the core.

As for the amount of steel found inside the surrounding buildings, this is again misrepresented by Dr. Wood, using only select photographs to make her case. If one looks into this issue closer one finds that there were great amounts of steel from the towers filling the cavities of these other buildings.

I suspect that you don't have Dr. Wood's textbook, because if you did, you'd see that she has no over-riding "case that she tries to make." Moreover, whereas indeed her photographs are select, they are also very comprehensive with the handy feature -- so handy that it makes the price of the book worth it alone -- of correlating pictures of damage via tables to map locations so that those select pictures provide a pretty comprehensive, understandable, and connected view of the destruction.

I have looked closer, and I conclude that while indeed "great amounts of steel from the towers [were found in] the cavities of these other buildings," the amounts were insufficient to account for the observed damage. The main edifice of WTC-4 is a prime example. It got leveled, but its North Wing did not although both were within the same radius of falling debris. Both the roof of the North Wing and the leveled main edifice show remnants of "wheat-chex" structures from the towers outer walls, but in insufficient quantities. The giant crater in WTC-6 is another great example.

I have read some portions of the NIST Reports, but not the whole thing. Have you?

By the sounds of it, I've probably read more than you.

Would you turn your argument around and look in the mirror before debunking the NIST Reports?

Huh? I have no idea what point you're trying to make with the above.

I took a lot of my information from scientists who could assess NIST’s claims better than I. But I DO have the PDFs of the NIST papers, and have checked where these scientists such as Jones, have pointed out what is therein.

Me, too.

Turns out, I have lots of issues with Dr. Jones. I mean, I like the man; he seems pretty nice; even in his "thus far and no further" line drawing, he has done great services to the 9/11 Movement. But he has also steered it away from where it should be looking.

Dr. Steven Jones, more so than anyone inside or outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement, is the individual and nuclear physicist who steered the world away from thinking nukes or cold-fusion on 9/11. He used the reasoning: "Radiation measurements didn't match X, Y, or Z levels normally associated with nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C, thus all forms of nuclear weapons can be eliminated." Obviously a slight of hand trick, because he takes off the table radiation levels and any further speculation into their source, like a nuclear or cold-fusion generator. Also, Dr. Ward (who champions nukes in a disinformation sort of a way) may have offered a nugget of truth in his efforts, by taking Dr. Jones to task for redefining-on-the-fly the definition of "trace levels" so that again radiation measurements could be dismissed by supposedly being "below trace levels."

Great that Dr. Jones found super duper nano-thermite in the dust. The issue for me is that he let the science-challenged yeomen of 9/11 extrapolate this into explaining things it cannot (like duration of under-ruble fires, radiation readings.). He should have corrected the record and nipped it in the bud from the beginning. All it would have taken was a little math to calculate not just the quantities of super duper nano-thermite required to dismantle the towers, but also the additional, massively overkill amounts required to account for pulverization AND the duration of under-rubble fires. No such math paper was ever produced by capable Mr. Jones to correct the record, because it would have left a gaping hole in need of an explaining destructive mechanism.

At this point, let me throw your words (repeated from above) back out:

I ... want to point out that when one finds one situation misrepresented, it is reasonable to assume that the other issues that person addresses are of equal merit – having none. This is standard jurisprudence.

Shall we hold Dr. Jones up to the same standard you propose? Please have at it, Mr. Hybridrogue1.


Who's to say what sort of Faustian deal Dr. Jones was forced to accept? He and his family are alive. He is famous and respected, because super duper nano-thermite was indeed involved: the PTB had to give him something to fill the vacuum!

My problem is less with Wood’s theories – she is welcome to them regardless of how misguided I may determine them to be. What irks me is the attacks on the other scientists and engineers by here defenders.

Ooops! Seems like I did that above. Well before you get your panties all in a wad about that, how about seeing if my criticism of Dr. Jones has merit.

In particular I would site Andrew Johnson, who has made repeated spurious charges against both Jones, Griffin and Architects. He made some very serious charges recently concerning the circumstances of the interview at the Press Club by Professor Jenkins, calling it a “hit and run” piece”.

I happen to agree with many of his charges. If it wasn't a "hit and run piece," what was it? Where is Dr. Jenkins today? What is he doing? (What research is he involved in? Did he have a vested interested in his actions?)

[Mr. Johnson] provides a story with absolutely nothing to verify it – we are simply left to take his word for it.

LOL! Mr. Hybridrogue1, you are trying too hard! Mr. Johnson did indeed provide plenty of information and more importantly context to verify it, including Dr. Judy Wood's take on the interview. What sort of axe are you grinding here?

If anyone has ever heard or read the transcript of this interview, there is very good reason that Wood supporters would want to characterize it as some sort of hit piece, as her answers and assertions are so jejune as to leave ones jaw on the floor.

Your admission that you have to take the word of Dr. Jones and others to understand NIST and other things suggests why you created the opinion you've build up.

I saw, heard, and read the interview. Dr. Jenkins is young, photogenic, and articulate. Dr. Wood is middle-aged, maybe even rumpled, and talks scattered like many brilliant professors I've known, because their mouth can't keep up with their brains. Presentation wise, Dr. Jenkins wins. When you read the transcript, though, and then learn of the context, victory goes the other direction.

---

Señor El Once : Lofty Book Review

2012-01-28

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Your dancing around with words and the skew you put on them are notable. And all done from the lofty position of not possessing Dr. Wood's textbook so that specifics can be addressed. You rely on dated material to build your strawmen. You mince words and split-hairs in your distractions.

So at this point, I would take exception with your term “wheat-chex” structures to characterize the outer construction of the tower face. The term indicates “weaving,” which is a misrepresentation of the more “puzzle piece” attachments that these connections were. There simply were NO box columns but those of the central core of these buildings. You certainly have a way of dancing around mistakes you make in your presentations Mr. El Once. And yet still you misrepresent the structures under discussion.

Good points (although irrelevant). The side walls aren't interwoven. They are somewhat cross-hatched, with three hollow "boxy" columns that are small with respect to the box columns within the towers core and crossed with three bands of steel.

The point you dodge is that the DEW devices could be aimed such that their arrayed beams of energetic destruction would singe the drywall and paint right off of the insides of the exterior wall assemblies (exhibited in many stills of falling chunks of exterior walls: some steamed clean and some still steaming) and also miss an important box columns in the core, the very spire that supports the DEW device for a time.

Even though I haven’t based a single thing on Chandler here, you wasted some quarter of your post thumping him – which has zero relevance to the issues between you and I. So you can’t leave this strawman off of your jejune rocking horse regardless.

You call it a strawman. I call it an example.

The point I'm trying to make is that, even after we remove the excuses of money and effort required to get a physical copy of Dr. Wood's textbook into their hands, the textbook is not getting detailed "good, bad, and ugly" book reports from leaders in the 9/11 Movement, reports that would substantiate their dismissive responses often laced with "kooky, loony, crazy" undertones.

Now rather than take the rest of your essay point by point, I will simply say this: There is PROVEN physical evidence on nanothermetic materials in the dust samples from WTC. I haven’t seen nor heard of any physical evidence of nuclear radiation that would be considered forensic proof.

What you personally have neither "seen nor heard" shouldn't be used to toss out an important nugget of truth regarding evidence of nuclear radiation.

Why did nuclear physicists Dr. Jones write his paper that concludes how no nuclear weapons (of known types A, B, and C) were employed on 9/11? Wouldn't have been necessary had measurements of radiation in reports from the govt not needed explaining. Let us not forget the hot spots in the rubble that burned for many weeks. Let us not forget the 1st responder ailments. Let us not forget the HazMat procedures often exhibited with dump trucks at the site. Let us not forget the security and secrecy they surrounded ground zero with. Let us not forget the destruction of evidence that was decried even by fire investigation authorities charged with investigating 9/11.

I have heard a lot of theoreticals on many of the issues of this case – and I have heard a lot of criticism of the individuals who HAVE come up with forensic proofs.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Even the term “super-duper” is one of these lowbrow digs, rhetorical splatter gaming that tends to put a serious person off.

Yes indeed, a serious person needs to be "put off" slightly in order to shake space in their minds to understand that nano-thermite does not answer all of the evidence, in particular the energy requirements of pulverization.

I also find your insinuations that Professor Jones is getting “paid off” to hide the “truth” of nuclear or DEW, as an insult to all thinking participants of the 9/11 investigation. This type of thing is bordering on shill business Mr. Once. All in all I find your arguments tending towards disruption and divisionary tactic.

I did not write "paid off"; you did. Kind of turns your whole paragraph into a strawman.

Steering is not the same thing as hiding.

With regards to the shill business, Mr. HybridRogue1,... Ooooh, I love the way you write that, because it sends "shills" down my spin the dutiful way in which you project your very own weaknesses onto me in a shilly sort of a way! Goose bumps!

As far as Dr. Jenkins being an expert in this field, who would better than he to show the absurdities of a hack?

It doesn't take much to knock down your Dr. Jenkins strawman. Dr. Wood's textbook was published years after the interview, making that ambush interview kind of irrelevant "to all thinking participants of the 9/11 investigation" who are now charged with providing a detailed and unbiased assessment of Dr. Wood's publication.

Since it is obviously your wont to blather on endlessly about any minutia that comes to mind. I will leave you to write another essay for us here and give you the last word.

Most kind of you, Mr. HybridRogue1! I take you up on that generous offer. This last word is so satisfying.

---

Señor El Once : Regurgitated Satisfying Last Words

2012-01-29

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I am feeling a bit like a cow, whereby my satisfying last words are regurgitated back up like cud for me to chew on again.

I'm not going to go into my detailed impressions of the older Jones-Wood-Reynolds spats that your links take me to. It is certainly valuable reading to the curious and provides some perspective of earlier battles. Do not let me leave the impression that such information isn't important.

You wrote:

As I expect this to be one of the arguments put forward in MR. Once’s next reply...

Unfortunately, what you presented wasn't even on my radar, so your guess of my response misses the mark.

I did love your quote:

[N]ot only does Jones not debunk cold fusion, but in fact he gave us an experiment, since repeated by others that shows great promise in the field.

And thus your research shows that cold fusion showed great promise at the time (a decade before 9/11), and in turn justifies the 9/11 Truth Movement casting a critical gaze on the evidence to determine its applicability to 9/11. Yet, when Dr. Jones was addressing radiation measurements of X, Y, and Z that he narrowly framed and concluded to not represent nuclear devices of types A, B, and C -- and thus all nuclear devices --, his framing conveniently ignored cold-fusion in his explanations as well.

The axe that I'm grinding is that the Dr. Wood textbook is newer and in many ways different from the earlier debate grounds. Thus, her textbook can't be so easily brushed aside on the basis of old videos and old debates, particularly ones that detour into a he-said, she-said of ad hominem umbrage. (For that matter, the involvement of Reynolds obscures what really was said by whom on one side.)

I understand quite well the hurdles that prevent objective readers from judging Dr. Wood's textbook for themselves, because most of the mental obstacles arise from many years of kooky, loony, nutty labeling of Dr. Wood coupled with her textbook's $44 price. [You'll just have to take my word that it is a quality textbook containing very valuable information and correlations worth its price -- even if some chapters later are pegged as disinformation.] This is why I have on several occasions put my money where my mouth was in a pay-it-forward effort to get 9/11 leaders over such mental obstacles.

[Disclaimer: I'm not associated with Dr. Wood or her textbook in any way, financial or otherwise. On the few occasions when I've given someone Dr. Wood's textbook, I secured their permission first, I paid for it out of my own pocket, and I had it shipped through Dr. Wood's web publisher. I also gave receivers the option of ordering themselves and having me repay through PayPal, so I could remain ignorant of their address and such.]

Mr. HybridRogue1, you don't try to predict the weather for tomorrow using the weather forecasts from a three year old newspaper. So, you should not present a book report on new material you neither have nor read, and whose debunking can't be found in old web pages that had no awareness of said book.

I ask respectively that you consider putting your money where your mouth is by rising to the baseline established for this Dr. Judy Wood discussion: participants have to read Dr. Judy Wood's textbook.

Word of caution. She offers few conclusions, few trend lines. She provides data points, which may or may not apply to the 9/11 trend line. Not all have been incorporated into my trend lines, and some data points provided shoulders for me to stand on to reach something else.

Mr. HybridRogue1, I relieve you of the obligation of giving me the last word, but further digs at Dr. Wood from below the baseline will be so noted and will reflect poorly on you.

---

Señor El Once : Other Cyberspace Encounters

2011-01-30

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

It seems to me, I've run into you elsewhere in cyberspace, but I don't remember where. Could have been AlterNet, A Limey's Ramblings, ...? Our opinions at the time weren't conflictive, and we might have even been tag-teaming against some Q-groupie. In Googling to find (unsuccessfully) where we've crossed paths, I see you've battled the Albury-bot aka Agent Albury Smith in the same 9/11 spiel he tried to pull over our eyes here.

I seem far out in my championing of no-planes and DEW (formerly milli-nukes). Meanwhile, the Q-groupies have come up short in their disinformation to keep thought out of such taboo areas. Yet, evidence and rational analysis led me to such beliefs. I'd be overjoyed to be convinced of some other view in the matter. In fact my views having changed from "pods on planes" and "milli-nukes" among others proves that I am open-minded, can change, and am not religiously dogmatic.

On the other thread, you initially didn't see why I brought up Dr. Chandler. I have been respectively dinging on the outer doors of the gated 9/11 communities to get their leaders to take no-planes and DEW seriously in either their debunking or their acceptance, because I want basis to either change or confirm my beliefs. I don't want to be the sole bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot on the topic. The frivilous manner in which the topics are side-stepped doesn't convince me to change and only re-enforces that which they attempt to suppress.


You wrote:

While I did just get through a conflict of opinions with Mr. El Once on the previous page. I have since read quite a few of his comments on other areas, and find them quite useful and well reasoned. I would have had further commentary on the last page, but alas, I made the vow to give him the last word – perhaps prematurely. But it is done.

I relieved you of abstaining from the last word in the other thread, but I nudged you to rise up the baseline I'm trying to establish for Dr. Judy Wood discussions: participants have to read Dr. Judy Wood's textbook.

... but I have nothing to hide under an avatar. My name is...

Yeah, well, I do.

It took a ruthless, immoral govt agent to make this point clear to me.

"A coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage."
~ Marvin Kitman

It doesn't mean I can't be found by those with a badge and a warrant, or by those with rudamentary IT skills. It means I don't want to make it too easy for Google to vacuum up dots and effect the removal of my resume from future stacks of such when it is again my turn to look for employment. Google background checks can be the bitch you don't even see hexing your worthy endeavors. And they can affect both immediate and extended families.

For this reason, I'll stick to screen-names in my salutations even if another name is known to me.

Don't get me wrong. I stand behind my words... (until the great and glorious day when convincing evidence and analysis gets me to change my mind, at which point I'll apologize and start believing something better.) In fact, I'm hoping my words will mean something to my kids and grandkids -- not everyone in my generation was an ignorant [...] My cyber comments are only a little, but I hope them to be something.

"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little."
~ Sydney Smith, writer and clergyman (1771-1845)

---

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

2012-01-31

Dear Mr. Shack,

I am most impressed. I haven't fully seen it all or digested it yet. You present several entrances to different rabbit-holes.

I couple of points stand out and stick in my throat, because if true, one of the trick-ponies (DEW) that I've been riding might suffer a heart attack mid-stream.

You wrote the piece from the perspective of what you would have done. You did your best to include historical facts supporting many of them, particularly at the beginning in the lead up.

Your supposition of everything being a Hollywood-style production -- including the footage of the towers' demolition -- is a step too far for my beliefs today. You add that you would put the WTC into a smoke-screen blanket to hide what was going on.

I also think you speculate too freely about conventional explosives being used, which maybe too quickly take exotic weapons (and DEW) off of the table. Come on! The pockets were deep; according to you, the towers were more or less vacant since 1993; the towers could have even been pre-demolitioned as supposed by hallow-tower theories; so they had no reason to shy away from exotic methods.

To further make the case of no conventional explosives, Dr. Shyan Sunder of NIST made the argument based on insufficient decibel levels, which would be easier to do with a straight face if he knew the destructive mechanism to be something else. Dr. Wood made the case based on seismic evidence, and how conventional explosives (in the towers as suggested by the demolition scheme) would transmit their sound energy through the structure to the ground to then be measured at a distance; the seismic readings did not indicate this. I make the case that massive overkill amounts would be required to achieve pulverization and that conventional explosives cannot account for the duration of under-rubble fire.

I can certainly bite off your speculation about media manipulation and wanting to sanitize and control what is broadcast to the public. I applaud you for demonstrating the collusion between networks as exhibited by their shared footage.

I could bite into the minor enhancement of footage, and particularly stills, after-the-fact. I do not bite into the faking of the entire demolition footage so that the real demolition could proceed behind the smoke screen in possibly some other way. Too much effort, when the WTC had to be demolished anyway (to achieve the objectives) and when the egos of the perps would want the deed captured on film.

Mr. Shack, you wrote:

Anyhow…what a brilliant scheme, eh? Now, as the Mastermind of the 9/11 PSYOP, and being well-aware of the dreadful flaws in my plan (what with making a joke of Newton’s Laws of Physics – such as aluminum airplanes effortlessly piercing plane-shaped holes in steel buildings just like Wile E Coyote ramming into rocks – and those same steel buildings collapsing TOP-DOWN in a plastic-looking/pyroclastic cloud of dust!) – I would naturally have to put in place and manage/finance by myself a crew of opposition ‘leaders’. I would have to employ gatekeepers to counter the expected crowd of ‘conspiracy-theorists’ (read “intelligent folks”) – in order to protect and ‘justify’ the absurdities of my hoax. If I were the 9/11 Mastermind I would therefore, naturally, employ weird-looking individuals (with CV-issues ranging from meth-addiction to to spastic behavior to childhood brain damage) to “embrace and promote” – but ultimately discredit – the REAL TRUTH, such as Nico Haupt, Rosalee Grable (aka the Webfairy) and Judy Wood with her DEW theories (based on the fake videos) which are clearly meant to provide a ‘scientific explanation’ for the absurd ‘dustification’ seen in the many 9/11 collapse “videos”. I would gradually also introduce other fanciful figures, such as “Russian military expert Dimitri Khalezov”, to provide yet another alternative explanation for the absurd TOP-DOWN collapses seen in the fake videos…UNDERGROUND NUKES brought the towers down! Ha ha ha – how droll!”Nukes” are such a popular thing!

You've stepped on my toes with your swipes at Dr. Wood (and your support of conventional explosives, and your dismissal of DEW), and in the resulting pain I must utter pointed words: "Let us also not forget Simon Shack and September Clues when considering what could discredit the real truth!" Ouch! I apologize for that outburst.

I believe that all disinformation has to be based on a solid foundation of truth. Our task is to mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth found in the study of such disinformation. I encourage Mr. McKee's readers to earnestly study the rabbit holes that Mr. Shack provides in search of truth nuggets.

P.S. As I was in the very early stages of exploring your links, I found this
February 25th, 2011, 8:07 pm posting from you. [Disclaimer: I haven't read far enough in the thread to know if anyone caught the error.] The yellow dotted line in the first image is drawn incorrectly. The gif animation shows the correct position of the dotted line, which would be parallel both with the tower walls as well as walls of the building in the foreground. The first image, however, does not show the dotted line parallel with the walls of the foreground building (but it is parallel with the edge of the image). Thus, the discussion talking about "Daddy's beer can leaning to the right and falling to the left" is literally framed wrong.

[Because I'm Truth & Shadows resident no-planer and September Clues champion, you don't know how much it pains me to discover that error. Let this be an example of how everyone must approach the evidence of 9/11 objectively in search of nuggets of truth, and mindful of that which might not be.]

---

Señor El Once : My Hybrid View

2012-01-31

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I will do my best to answer in a limited time frame what I can of your questions given in the postings January 31, 2012 at 12:59 am [when did leaders know...], January 31, 2012 at 2:47 am [false-flag attack...], and January 31, 2012 at 3:46 am [when did leaders know...]


I preface my response by saying that what I speculate below is my "hybrid view" [no pun on your name intended] as I try to "walk my talk" in mining, refining, and re-purposing (possible) disinformation sources for nuggets of truth and then in forming my own unsubstantiated trend line. Similar to Simon Shack's recent posting here, sometimes those sources take me a step too far in my understanding and beliefs, which reflects either my own human failings in being reluctant to embrace a radical concept at first introduction or my sixth sense to avoid taking that step too far into nothingness.

You wrote:

Nevertheless, I have found nothing to compel me to interest in Wood’s theories. Still even yet, I never get a digest of what she is saying by any of her supporters – something to grasp…as if there is something esoteric in the work that cannot be passed on to the uninitiated until he has seen the panorama in it’s whole as revealed in this book. What I find in place of an attempt at rephrasing her case in blog sized bits – is rather a rabid critique of those who have rejected her on their own separate grounds.

May not be the case with you, but in some of my laps around the 9/11 block, I found the "separate grounds for rejecting Dr. Wood's work" to be shakey in a great many cases. Like a brain-dead echo chamber, all too frequently the rejection was based on superficial reasons (e.g., photogenic or articulation). Rarely was it series of specific references (Chapter X, Paragraph Y) and explanation of why a given point was wrong.

Certainly some debunking attempts did go to some depth, but they were notable as much for the hairs they chose to split as they were for the hairs left un-groomed, with nary an acknowledgement of something that is truthful, can't be debunked, and that they actually agree with. The covert intention was to debunk point A in order to get points B, C, and D taken off the table without further consideration.

So all I would ask of anyone who promotes this work to give some indication as to what is said therein, just the beginning of where her argument starts, paces and concludes.

"Just the beginning of where her argument starts, paces and concludes" sounds easy to deliver on, but actually isn't. Maybe because of how she was vilified over years; maybe because of a deal cut for survival that she wouldn't spell things out and connect dots: Dr. Wood's textbook is short on the conclusions.

It is left to readers to connect dots and possibly come to their own conclusions. The craftiness of her work are that she sneaks into the public realm lots of evidence and anomalies that need to be addressed. One dot she presents is cold-fusion, another is free-energy, and yet another is hurricane Erin. All may be totally true; yet none (or few) may be in the trend line of what actually happened.

I have never read any one who has made even the simplest case for the positive on her work, it all seems to be a case on the negative to her detractors.

It is well you should make this distinction. I am one of the few who attempts to make "the simplest case for the positive on her work." This has necessitated looking for the positive in her work, and not being turned off by the first negative (or inaccurate or inapplicable) facet stumbled upon in her work. I don't mind being proven wrong one day, and I threw down the challenge (using my own money) to various 9/11 leaders to affect this outcome. I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on the topic and desperately want to be brought back into the fold with the other sheep. Yet, this is not to be.

Science-challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement echo the sentiments of its leaders without learning of the limits, boundaries, or skew of their leader's work; the leader is smarter than they are in that field, which is why they defer to him on technical specifics.

Is there no one capable of explaining in some actual rational manner what the significance of hurricane Erin being 200 miles to the east off the coast of NY?

I can point out five points regarding the significance of hurricane Erin. I preface this by stating this is my speculation, but based on data points mined from both Dr. Wood and Mr. Shack.

1) The primary purpose of hurricane Erin may have been as a last-resort back-up clean-up plan, should other 9/11 events not got off as expected or been too exhuberent in the energy of their execution. The perps could have suppressed media reports (and later re-written and re-broadcast them) while Erin was steered in to further "obscufate" the already mangled evidence.

2) Mr. Shack (rather recently in these forums) suggested that "hurricanes suck" in the sense they would draw all clouds and present perfectly clear skies as the ideal backdrop for the media fakery they were going to deploy as part of their hoax.

3) Dr. Wood brought up hurricane Erin in the context that it represents lots of energy. In the sense of Tesla and free energy, this storm could have been the energy source for either or both space-based and land-based DEW. (Ruling out space DEW for the towers does not rule it out for WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6.) I do not discount the science potential, but I remain on the fence regarding its operational applicability to 9/11.

4) Dr. Wood's research into hurricane Erin, however, has the side-effect of supporting Mr. Shack's views of how the media was controlled on 9/11 before any pixel hit any tower. Hurricane Erin still could have presented dangers in a storm surge and a hazard for cross-Atlantic flights; it could have changed direction naturally and hit New York, if not some other city along the East Coast. They were tracking it all week. Thus, it should have still been news as a top item for the cheery weathermen at least. Dr. Wood points out the lock-step media silence on the topic (with only one or two early exceptions).

5) Lots of people have questioned the many stunning coincidences on 9/11 with regards to FEMA as well as the many simultaneous military exercises. If memory serves me, FEMA had set up on 9/10 (the day before) some sort of a command or emergency response center on a pier in preparation for their emergency exercises on 9/11. Why on pier, particularly if the news stations had been tracking a hurricane all week as it went up the coast? This exposes foreknowledge in a major way, because a hurricane could well have been the emergency FEMA was called to, yet being based on a pier right on the coast, their very preparations would have been wiped out in literally the first destructive waves of a hurricane. ... Unless of course, they knew better and that the hurricane was a non-issue.

6) The devil in these details is HAARP. Deploy HAARP to steer a hurricane, and FEMA can set up on a pier with no fear (unless things went horribly wrong), the media footage can be faked more easily, and the just-in-case clean-up surge is waiting in the wings. HAARP and weather control is one of those military secrets that the govt does not want to let the public know they have. This is a deep rabbit hole with much validity in some of the anomalous yet very destructive weather patterns (and earthquakes) experienced through out the world (including Japan) over the last decade at least.

I am open to it, if you can give me the slightest thing to latch onto. Do you actually find anything in this book that you can claim means beyond a reasonable doubt DEW had to have been one of the mechanisms used in the tower’s destruction?

Yes. For me, it was connecting dots (evidence points) presented by Dr. Wood.

For example, through Dr. Wood's work, it became clear to me why pulverization was not an unfortunate side-effect of an extremely thorough and overly redundant military operation: it was a demolition goal.

Dr. Wood brings together the evidence that the bathtub was near prestine, and that only 4 of the 7 subway lines in the basements were blocked. (This debunks deep underground nukes.) She discusses the seismic evidence, and how they represented neither conventional means (that would transmit energy from the explosions through the structure to the ground to be picked up on monitors) nor nukes (for similar reasons).

Her point was that traditional demolitions -- and certainly foreign terrorist plots -- do not resort to pulverization that was observed in the early phases of their destruction. Pulverization amps up the logistics hassles and represents a risk of detection if implemented with traditional demolitions (made to look like terrorism) or actual foreign terrorist plots, in addition to such methods resulting in large chunks of building -- even multiple conjoined stories -- falling from great heights, obtaining large amounts of kinetic energy, and subsequently damaging the bathtub that held out the Hudson River. The subway in the WTC basement had tunnels connecting it with other buildings as well as under the river. Had the bathtub suffered damage, the basements of many buildings would have flooded and expanded the damage. Plus, flooded basements massively complicated the Gold Heist to the vaults under WTC-4. (Some of this gold was found; neatly loaded in a truck under WTC-5 without any drivers who obviously got word to get out.)

DEW is operational. Take a google on "Active Denial Systems" for crowd control. I've seen videos of lasers taking out missiles.

For completeness, I'll repeat something I've written many times before. Pulverization is a massive energy sink that would necessitate massive overkill amounts of conventional or exotic (e.g., super duper nano-thermite) materials. Likewise, the weeks long duration of under-rubble fires also can't be explained without massive overkill amounts of said materials, and even then they can't really.

The above means another destructive mechanism must be found that can meet the energy requirements.

The measured radiation levels together with the hot spots and energy requirements hint of nuclear sources (conventional micro-nukes or cold-fusion). Lead by Dr. Jones, conventional micro-nukes were taken off of the table, at the expense of any further supposition by him of the energy source, including cold-fusion. I was in the multiple milli-nukes camp for quite some time, but the nukes' flashes, blast waves, and EMPs were missing or hazy, not to mention learning of the fracticidal side-effects of using nukes in tandem close to one another.

Whereas Dr. Wood devoted chapters to talk about free energy (from space) powering a DEW device on the ground, the seed it planted with me was to consider multiple DEW devices that are separate from their energy source. The concept of "free or radiant energy" coming from a nuclear (or cold-fusion) generator could power the DEW devices either "wirelessly" or by being "plugged in." [I have bike lights that use only one wire to feed energy from the generator to the light, and then the metal of the frame is the return electron path. In a similar manner, massive power cables could installed in the elevator shafts -- one way; whose to say the steel in the towers wasn't the return electron path.]

If you look closely at the destruction of WTC-1, you'll readily see "the spire". WTC-2 also has a portion in its destruction where a third of the structure is visible through the dust while the upper two-thirds have seemingly fallen around this block, before it too falls into its footprint. I speculate that these are two examples of where DEW devices were placed, before clean-up operations took them out.

I don’t often site Occam’s Razor, because it can be framed in spurious manner. But I do see it applicable in this instance, because the simpler explanation of a set of chemical explosives already fits the bill, and have been proven to have been present by forensic study.

I disagree for reasons of Occam's Razor. I assume that by "a set of chemical explosives", you are including nano-thermite in the set. I do not discount their involvement. But as I've repeated many times to Mr. McKee's readers, the logistics required for installation becomes unmanageable and very risky when extrapolating to the amounts required for pulverization. Alas, despite the proven forensic evidence of "a set of chemical explosives", it does not account for hot-spots and under-rubble fire duration.

Mr. Shack in this thread brought up the premise that the towers may have been mostly empty, with the exodus of flesh-and-blood tenants beginning in earnest in 1993. This could explain the lack of office content while reducing the risk of detection. If true, this also reduces the risk of detection. However, it doesn't remove the hassles of the massively overkill logistics.

If deep-pockets can afford the other aspects of the hoax, it can certain spring for exotic destructive means. You can bet there were colonels and generals literally dying to deploy such weapons from their arsenals.

Whereas they had control of the message so as to keep the public's perceptions in check (no talk of nukes, no talk of the true energy requirements of pulverization, no talk of the physics-defying collapse speed if only using Newton's gravity), you can bet that other world govt's weren't so naive. The skewing of the destructive mechanisms in the media sent a message to them, underscored by President Bush himself: "You are either with us or against us. You are either with the US or with the terrorists." This is so wonderfully oxymoronic, just like his quip "let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories."

You might also address the nature of the beam. Is it presumed to be coherent? Because there are some claims, such as the said damage to cars and surrounding areas besides the target {towers} that would indicate a more scattered characteristic.

In my speculation, I say that the beam from the DEW device was coherent and accurately targeted within the boundaries of the towers' external walls. After all, it accurately severed all floors from the spire making it look like a left-over fish spine from Jesus's feeding of the masses with a few loaves and fishes.

The scattered damage to cars and surrounding areas -- in my speculation -- I attribute to the separate energy source. The nuclear (or cold-fusion) generator may have emitted electromagnetic fields (or other anomalous fields ala the Hutchinson effect) as a side-effect, that slipped through, say, the window slits. Its polarizing form flipped cars in cases like a powerful magnet, and more importantly induced massive Eddy currents in the (sheet) metal of car parts intersecting such fields. Large Eddy currents caused heat that ignited paint and touching-plastic components (like door handles, gas caps, door & window seals). Anomalous burn patterns resulted from what was line of sight from the source to an area of the car.

Pictures of cars outside the towers burning before either had fallen suggest to me they were radiated in EM fields early during the powering-up of such an energy generator.

You may respond as you wish. However I am not moved by the idea that I should have no opinion on the subject until I read her book. As I said, I am not critiquing her book, I am not interested in the book, because of my take on the author. It may be nice to have a beautifully produced coffee table book on the subject of 9/11. I’m sure it is, but that is not my itch at the moment.

You are entitled to your opinion and to base it on whatever material you find suitable, but that does not make it applicable to the debunking of her book, which is the new mark in the sand for all who want to. Consider this first impression by Mr. Chandler:

Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project.

The book was meant to be validated or debunked.

Just to be thorough, here are questiosn posted in the other thread by Dear Mr. HybridRogue1:

A specific question on the Wood hypothesis is; what is the proposed power of this beam weapon? What is the proposed power source for said energies? Where are these things, or this thing assumed to be located in relation to the WTC?

The power of the DEW device is limited by what it can accept and what a nuclear (or cold-fusion) source can supply. I describe it like a microwave oven that has sufficient energy to instantly turn residual water molecules in building content (e.g., concrete, drywall, paint, etc.) into steam, whose expanding volume pressure blows the content apart. I contend that much of the "smoke" streaming off of falling pieces isn't smoke at all. It is dust and steam. Note how the inside of the external walls in some cases are already "steamed clean down to the metal" of any paint, while other pieces have streams of dust coming off it.

My proposed power source was a small nuclear (or cold-fusion) type reactor. Could have been place in the basement or some other level. Unsubstantiated comment from me is that maybe this was in the center of the WTC-6 crater.

The DEW devices were planted at several levels within the towers, timed when they were to go on and off. Wouldn't surprise me if a blanket of nano-thermite was placed around them to melt their remains once it had executed their multi-floors of destruction.

Is it supposed to be based on scalar or microwave, or a combination, or something brand new? Perhaps ultrasonic – maser?

This is left as an exercise for you. Your research will prove that this isn't so far fetched. Our military is operationally much further along than any YouTube video will hint.

And as the hurricane is asserted to be a byproduct, or mechanism of this beam{s}, can you try to give a simple explanation as to what it’s purpose would be?

The hurricane was never asserted to be a by-product of the DEW device. Dr. Wood drops the hint that, agreeable to Teslian free energy, it could be a source of energy, particularly for space-based beams (that haven't been ruled out causing the WTC-6 crater, the WTC-5 bore-holes, or the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice.) I don't bring this up under the auspices of it being my position or understanding, but to help jar readers into thinking outside the box.

From January 31, 2012 at 3:46 am Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

[I]t is indeed standard jurisprudence, that unless the party admits to the mistake, and admits an alternate opinion, in other words, ‘recants’, the testimony is held in contempt to the truth, whether framed as a lie or not, it would attain the same status. I don’t think that such basic standards of common law are an unreasonable precedent to follow.

It first must be determined what the error is. The error has to indeed be an error, and not some straw man.

In the case of the mistake I brought up (cars towed to the bridge), I recall that Dr. Wood did address it, just not everywhere it appeared (like her website) and with a false impression lingering in some places.

You can let Wood dazzle me by addressing the questions I asked.

I believe I addressed your questions based on nuggets of truth mined from Dr. Wood. FTR and also to my chagrin, the purpose of Dr. Wood's textbook was not to dazzle or address your questions. It was to plant seeds in your mind that we need to be looking outside the box.

---

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

2012-01-31

As to the Hutchinson effect, what do you know of this aside from the mention by Wood? The publicly available information on Hutchinson is quite controversial.

Not much, and agreed it is quite controversial.

Some of it has the appearance of a card to "get out of assassinations free" for reasons of insanity. Killing the crazy does more to help give validity to the crazy story.

One critical point I do have is the assumption that the modern nano-milled energetic materials lack the explosive pressure needs to result in the utter disintegration of the non-metallic elements in the buildings.

If you gleamed that I as stating "modern nano-milled energetic materials lack the explosive pressure needs to result in ... [pulverization]", your assumption would be wrong.

Modern energetic materials cannot have it both ways: causing pulverization and then later burning at high temperatures for weeks. This is the first area where nano-milled energetic materials come up short in being the catch-all explanation to 9/11.

The second area is that to the degree pulverization happened in the towers, overkill quantities would be required. Doesn't seem logical if other easier-to-deploy mechanisms are in your arsensal.

Radiation measurements are also a flag, even if they don't match a purposely narrowly defined set of nuclear causes.

I also disagree emphatically that there was a lack of such metallic debris in the aftermath. Such material covered more than 10 acres and beyond the complex as you well know.

If you gleamed that I as stating "there was a lack of such metallic debris in the aftermath", your assumption would be off-base.

Let's take your 10 acre covering of metallic material as the gospel. Spread kind of thin when trying to figure out how WTC-4's main edifice got flattened and not its north wing, both of which has recognizable amounts of WTC tower steel on them, but not to a leveling degree.

Also, of the metallic debris you speek of, how much was external steel? When contemplating the steel trusses that the floors rested on and connected from center core to exterior wall and that was in the very thick of the path of great resistance, this is the type of metal that I think is under-represented.

[I]t is all speculation at this point. ... As FUN as speculation can be, I see the need to address the problems caused by the Public Relations Regime as more worthy of my concerted attention. Cracking the induced emotional zombie state of the majority of the population is what I am mainly into at the moment.

Speculation has been prematurely stopped under the auspices of, "Oh, now that sounds really bat-shit crazy even if true. Let's go forth with the lowest-common-denominator core concerns, so we don't turn anyone off." Watered down and forced to go through corporate media, it is easy to ignore, flip the channels, and remain with ass firmly planted on the couch.

Shock-and-awe, Baby! It's what got us into the mess; it's what can get us out.

The truthful depth of such rabbit holes into how the hoax against us and the world were Shock-and-awed into the thinking public's brains, a new level of consequential activism might be obtained that could clean govt and its institutions & agencies of its rot.

---

Señor El Once : The pitfalls of riding two trick ponies

2012-02-01

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

The pitfalls of riding two trick ponies is that I'm only one. Now they both come up in this thread in a serious and respectful manner, and I'm not that good at multi-tasking.

Worse, one of my beloved ponies (DEW) is being slaughter by Mr. Shack, who people could credit with being "the trainer" of the other pony I ride, (no-planes, video fakery, September Clues). What irony!

Mr. Shack introduced several rabbit holes that I need to follow and research, because until I read them, I'm not on the same page and am arguing from a place of ignorance. In a similar vein, you have some reading to do before you and I are on the same page at least with respect to discussing the DEW topic.

Please accept my apologies if I place our DEW discussion on the back-burner as I let the ClueForum rabbit holes suck up my time for awhile. Pay attention to my discussion with Mr. Shack, and join in once you too have gotten on the same page with the research.

I do think you’re barking up a blacked out lightpole with the amount of steel in the debris, and I would point to the early observations of Manning at Fire Engineering magazine, based on his brief walk-through of the ground zero site as pertains to the fleets of trucks already removing tons of beams and box columns. Also mentioned is the coincidence of the handy lengths many of these beams were – that just fit inside the truck beds.

At any rate there is pretty common acceptance that the great majority of tonnage of steel is accounted for in general numbers.

To show that I am not married to the concept, if I expressed doubts regarding the amount of steel in the debris being possibly inadequate to what was contained in the towers in the form of floor trusses and rebar, then let's set that aside and go with your belief.

"Dustification of steel" has never really been my axe to grind; I was all about the dustification of the other building content. And from what I recall of my matron saint Dr. Wood, her usage of the phrase "dustification of steel" came from one view of the spire that shows it seemingly disappeared while dust puffs lingered in the air where it once was. Although it takes some effort, a second video can be found that offers a different, clarifying view of the spire in its last moments. Video 2 shows the spire falling over and almost directly towards the vantage point of video 1, and thereby accounting in a quasi "optical illusion" of a spire being dustified. Moreover, at one point I may have stumbled upon an image of the aftermath that showed the spire slightly folded on top of other debris.

I'm not sure whether this second video was ever brought to Dr. Wood's attention so that she could correct the record.

Whereas you might legitimately use it (or not) as a second example of:

standard jurisprudence, that unless the party admits to the mistake, admits an alternate opinion, and ... ‘recants’, the testimony is held in contempt to the truth.

It makes no nevermind to me whether she does or doesn't. My purpose is to mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth. Thus, "dustification of steel" might not be one of them.

One more note – you dismiss the possibility that unreacted thermates may have been forced under the pile to continue reacting there, which would be a source of heat for the foundry like conditions described. They would also provide the necessary oxygen. Would a beam weapon provide such oxygen in your scenario?

You've got two major errors in the above paragraph.

I'll start with the second one. It isn't a "beam weapon" that would account for the source and duration of the heat in the rubble pile. The DEW device is the knife way up in the tower; it can do no destructive cutting without "a hand and arm" (e.g., a source of energy) grasping its handle and forcing it. My premise -- a hybrid off-shoot from Dr. Wood -- is that the DEW devices were distributed or separate from their supply of energy, which I leave open as being potentially one or more milli-nuclear or cold-fusion reactor. Unspent but fizzling nuclear material from such an energy source would be "a source of heat for the foundry like conditions described" as well as accounting for the duration, 1st responder ailments, and hazmat clean-up techniques (e.g., putting lots of water on it, trucking in clean dirt, spreading it out, letting it absorb, scraping it up again, and trucking it out.)

Now for the first error. I do not dismiss unreacted thermates for being a source of heat in the pile and being able to generate its own oxygen in the burning process. I have no doubt that it probably happened on occasion. One discussion participant from elsewhere was adament that thermite flakes and (cooled) iron spheres were found near a quenched hot-spot or two.

Where I dismiss unreacted thermates is in accounting for the duration of the heat. I'll even let you speculate that (at least) two kinds of thermate were used: on one extreme were extremely fast/flash burning whose explosive energy you want to credit with pulverizing content; on the other extreme were slow burning cutting charges as exhibited by Dr. Jones and Mr. Cole in their experiments. Any way you combine them, if you do the math and run the numbers, for thermates to account for the duration of the heat you would need massive quantities and probably a conveyor system to continually feed it to the hot spot. (Obviously, working conveyor systems for thermate weren't present under the rubble.)

In this manner, the nano-thermite sacred cow (as the end-all, cure-all, answer-all) gets slaughter. I'm sorry.

Meanwhile, my precious DEW pony is in line at Mr. Shack's butcher, and I need to see if I can get a stay of execution.

P.S. Thank you, Mr. HybridRogue1, for engaging me in this respectful debate.

---

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

2012-02-01

Dear Mr. Shack,

I most appreciate you taking the time to engage me in this respectful discussion. Your last two posting presented several rabbit holes that I have not had the time to explore. Anything I write here and now would be a gut reaction made in ignorance, because I haven't done the legwork (yet) to at least get on the same page and then analyze what the page says.

I'm responding from my gut and ignorant state anyway, because if nothing else it'll benchmark my opinion. As I complete my homework, we'll be able to see whether a convincing case is made to make me change my mind and establish a new benchmark.

I'm regrouping the links you provided. The first set are those that I have run across in one form or another in the past. I haven't explored these from beginning to end yet, but I'll go out on a limb and benchmark that I am probably already a duped useful idiot (or teetering that direction) on all in this first set.

As such, this member of the September Clues choir isn't going to go there. However, I strongly encourage all readers of Mr. McKee's blog who haven't been there, haven't researched it, and haven't "looked the devil in the eyes" to form an opinion of the depth of the 9/11 hoax based on a review of Mr. Shack's evidence to go there and validate (or not) these wonderful links.

- THE 17 SECOND ENIGMA

- THE FALLING MAN

- Now, you may ask, what about the 3000 alleged 9/11 victims you have heard of?

- And what about the “Heroic Firefighters”?


The following set are those links with premises that haven't convinced me. The benchmark for me today is that I consider them to be a step too far (into nothingness). As was mentioned, that opinion is based on nothingness as well, due to me not being on those pages and considering what is presented. I am ignorant and hope to rectify that. [My apologies if my inability to multi-task has me go dark in this discussion for awhile as I complete that homework.]

- Collapse Animation

- THE CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE

- And what about the Ground Zero rubble?

The above and the tenor of Mr. Shack's posting suggest that none of the demolition footage was real. This literally makes my stomach turn, such is the pain of having one of my beliefs destroyed.

I can't even argue against such statements, because everything that I would base my arguments on -- namely every YouTube video and every still image of WTC buildings being pulverized that I have ever seen -- is being called into question. All I have to go on is the A and B shots, the before and after pictures, countless images of the towers from their inception until September 10 and then (suppressed and difficult to find) images of the destruction aftermath after September 11. Everything between A and B is getting yanked from the table of my understanding.

I'll eat some Gummi-bears to settle my turning stomach and embark in the coming days on the quest of getting "on the same page" with Mr. Shack in at least reviewing the same work.

As part of my benchmarking efforts, Mr. Shack deserves an immediate response to the following:

Firstly, I hope you will agree that showing to the World TV audience REAL images of the WTC demolition job would have been an incredibly silly choice on the part of the perps. Whatever explosives were used, anything that may have gone wrong would have been aired on LIVE TV – to the entire world!

Yes, I agree. This is an excellent point.

Secondly, the physics of the TOP-DOWN collapses shown on TV are simply laughable. How could the burning top sections of the towers (“hit by airplanes”) possibly cause the collapse of ALL the floors underneath? This could only happen on Fantasy Land – in a cartoon dimension! http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

That the destruction would be TOP-DOWN isn't an issue for me.

But what does become an issue is that an airplane crash, jet fuel, and office furniture fires would result in such complete and thorough pulverizing destruction at speeds close to free-fall through the path of greatest resistance. Yes, this is physics-defying and as you say laughable.

And it contradicts your third point.

Thirdly. since the perps could rely on the full complicity of the TV networks, don’t you think that they would have used this asset to its full potential? Whatever explosives were used to bring down the WTC – do you think that they would have been comfortable showing it all on LIVE TV???

Given: the perps could rely on the full complicity of the TV networks, with lots of examples including the lock-stepping weathermen suppressing news of a hurricane off the coast of NY.

Agreed: the perps would not have been comfortable showing the details of their chosen mechanisms of destruction on LIVE telly. They would be eager to suppress explosive (or nuke) flashes or destruction being thrown too far. They would have masked out any left-over or hanging-from-a-spire DEW devices. Etc.

But I maintain what was shown did not use that asset to its full potential.

Otherwise, they would have fixed the glaring errors in the physics that was depicted in their Hollywood production. They would have slowed down the footage or manipulated it in a way so it wasn't damn close to free-fall. They would have focused narrowly on sections so as to obscure and hide the big picture. They would have not made available long-shots that show top-to-bottom destruction.

It all comes down to this: If you are able to accept that the 9/11 images (of airliners melding into steel buildings as if they were made of Jell-O) are totally fake – why would you lend any credence to the successive imagery showing the equally absurd, TOP-DOWN tower collapses?

I acknowledge that the imagery showing the tower's destruction is susceptible to manipulation as well. But I do not agree to what it all comes down to and that we have to remove all credence to the demolition images.

The fault lies not with their video manipulation skills, but with the thorough mechanisms of destruction.

You seemingly tie a hand behind my back by taking away reliance on all collapse images from A [post-September 10] to B [pre-September 12]. With my free-hand I type that the WTC complex was still destroyed in a spectacular manner requiring lots of energy. Your dismissal of efforts to guage and frame that energy requirement appropriately is inappropriate and unsubstantiated.

And this is where Dr. Wood comes back into the discussion. An uncontroversial aspect of her book making it worth its price alone is that she uses images and maps [pre-A] to put into perspective a great many images of the aftermath [post-B].

Although Mr. Chandler's skimming of Dr. Wood's book doesn't hold it in high regard, he did have this positive first impression: "Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." To me, that says: Dr. Wood's textbook is destined to be validated or debunked, but not ignored.

Regarding Judy Wood, I am sorry if our opinions diverge – and I can well understand the fascination people may have for her theories. Lest you think that my take on her is purely personal – or is grounded in thin/ or insufficient evidence – you may wish to sift through the numerous discussions we have had about her role over at Cluesforum (just do a forum search for “Judy Wood”).

[Your forum needs a subscription feature so that I can be kept abreast of responses to my comments as well as updates to threads that interest me.]

I've half heartedly done the "Judy Wood" search on your forum in the past. On another thread (or possibly email) awhile back you provided some links. I was not impressed with the level of discourse about Dr. Wood (much less her textbook or theories). Plus, Dr. Wood's area of 9/11 is mostly off-topic with regards to your forum -- I could see myself getting banned very quickly.

Just like I can't talk knowledgably about the demolition video hoax without going to your pages and objectively reviewing them, you are cripled in a similar manner in discussing important elements of Dr. Wood's textbook and what the energy requirements of the destruction were. (Flags go up when your speculation sticks with conventional explosives.)

I am trying to raise the bar and the level of discussion. The baseline established for this Dr. Judy Wood discussion: participants have to read Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook.

I get the impression that you could well afford a copy. Maybe you should order up several and give them as gifts to two or three of your tireless researchers in the Clues Forum. Remember the glowing review Mr. Chandler gives it: "It’s a HEAVY book. Someone put a lot of money into publishing this full color extravaganza thing." If nothing else, they'll be able to put it on their coffee tables as "full color extravaganza disinformation," one that they will be proud to show their grandchildren regarding how our generation was played.

If I error on your financial resources, I've made the offer a couple of times already and make it again this final time: it would be an honor to give you a copy. All I ask is an objective review: "the good, the bad, and the ugly." If the book is deemed worthy by you, you ought to pay-it-forward to someone else. If the book is deemed totally unworthy by you, then you probably won't mind parting company with it and giving it to someone who can appreciate it.

It looks to me like we both have our homework assignments to get us onto the same page and to the starting point for further discussion.

---

Señor El Once : Apologies for being wrong in benchmark

2012-02-02

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

I owe you an apology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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