Señor El Once : temper your enthusiasm
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I caution you to temper your enthusiasm for all evidence and concepts brought to light by Dr. Wood's textbook. Not all of them are applicable to 9/11. And Mr. Shack has unlocked how some potential deceit may have been introduced into that wonderful book in the form of tainted pictures. Some of it may also be in how the damage was interpretted. Certainly, a tainted image or two could lead one to the wrong conclusion, or lead you away from a different but worthy conclusion.
Case in point, you wrote:
How would any of the before mentioned make vehicle engine blocks disappear leaving gas tanks intact? Everything that goes boom is not a bomb. Everything that glows is not hot. There was no evidence of high heat. There was no “debris pile” there was a small debris field.
Dr. Wood has in the past presented images of the front of a fire engine that seemed to have a melted engine block and made this strong inference. I discovered that this older style fire engine had its engine set back such that access was obtained through the cab. So the reason the picture shows a wilted grill and front-end with no engine in sight is because the motor is much further back from the front bumper and you can't see it. Just correcting the record on this image; other melted engines and anomalous burn patterns remain.
A place where I'm deviating from Dr. Wood is her chapter on there being no evidence of high heat. One of her valid arguments was the hydraulics of the escavation equipment failing if such high heat existed, like in the one of the crane pulling out a piece of seemingly glowing hot material.
With absolutely no substantiation to back me up (yet) I suspect that this particular image may be discovered in the category of being tainted. So it is ironic that you would bring up the tidbit from Dr. Wood: "Everything that glows is not hot." This is especially true when thinking digital special effects and how to taint an image.
Although I am dinging an aspect or two from Dr. Wood's work, I think of it more as "correcting the record" ~or~ "showing how this thinking reader is coming to his own conclusions." Dr. Wood's work are the shoulders I stand on.
The rubble pile had hot-spots that burned for many weeks at high temperatures. I believe this more closely resembles unspent but fizzling nuclear material. That doesn't have to mean that the destructive mechanisms were milli-nuclear bombs (exclusively or at all). It could have been a milli-nuclear generator powering something else, like a DEW mounted to the infrastructure of the towers and later became famously known as "the spire." Let us not forget that radiation was measured, and the good Dr. Jones had to try to explain it away.
A scene from the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian" had Brian being chased by the multitude who mistook him for being one of their contemporaries, Jesus H. Christ. Brian loses a sandal and stumbles into a gord seller's stand. The rabid followers pick up his sandal and say: "Look! The Sandal that he wore. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the Sandal." But another group points to the gord that Brian stumbled into. "Look! The gord that he touched. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the gord" "No, the Sandal! Follow the Sandal!" "No, follow the gord!" "No, the Sandal!" "No, the Gord!"
Mr. Goldstein, let us not be like these all too familiar religious zealots when discussing 9/11 and limiting ourselves to one destructive mechanism. The joke is probably on us that they used all mechanisms that anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement ever made a half-hearted case for. They foist purposely mutually exclusive suggestions at us: "It was spire-based DEW!" "It was milli-nuclear devices!" "It was super duper nano-thermite!" "It was space-based DEW!" "It was conventional explosives!" "No, sheeple! It was all of the above [... to some meaure, certainly when talking the WTC complex as a whole]!"
However, of the above, 9/11 being a nuclear event in any way is the reason the OCT PR is so fervent in its misguiding efforts. Dr. Wood's textbook rightfully questions the energy requirements of pulverization, and thus gives us one of many nuggets of truth.
Señor El Once : evidence of high heat
Señor El Once : brain-dead plugging of Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming alarming
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I am the resident champion of Dr. Wood and Mr. Shack, although I do it in a left- and back-handed sort of a way. I have no problems handing off one of those batons to you, but I follow you only so far as you follow the truth.
Your brain-dead plugging of Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming alarming. Although her textbook is a quality effort, it is not without fault. And because the seeds of disinformation are sown everywhere, the very real possibility exists that some clever disinfo vines have grown around her ankles.
I can think of a few instances off-hand here or there where her website should have been corrected, yet these same instances were carried over into her expensive book. One example was the fire truck with front end "melting" that she asks where the engine went, as if it were melted. The engine didn't melt; it is set further back and isn't visible.
A strength of Dr. Wood's book is also its weakness. She brings up many different concepts, but rarely ties them together or concludes anything definitively. I could be convinced of the Hutchison Effect in general as something scientifically valid (but am still on the fence), but it is another hurdle entirely to determine applicability to 9/11. The same applies to free energy and Hurricane Erin.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
I know Mr. Shack very well. He is a disinformation agent. He does not have the scientific training to make ANY evaluations. You are muddling the waters. This is another technique used in a disinformation campaign.
Yeah, well, Mr. Shack considers Dr. Wood disinformation. I'm at least open-minded enough to consider what he has to say. I have no problem with him helping trim the fat from Dr. Wood's legacy and discover the areas where Dr. Wood might have been duped.
Scientific training isn't the skillset that is required to evaluate digital forgeries. "Distrust but verify" in the realm of all 9/11 imagery is the important lesson that Mr. Shack has already taught me.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
You have not studied Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook very well. You get a c-
Well, I guess that you'll just have to step in and tutor me, so I can get a better grade.
Mr. Goldstein continues:
Everything that glows is not hot. She gives many examples of no evidence of high heat. Don’t confuse smoke with fuming either. You need to read her textbook again and take notes.
Mr. Goldstein would be well to recognize that glows manufactured in imagery by digital manipulation also are not hot in the literal sense, but quite possibly the figurative.
As my tutor, I hope that you will be reading her textbook as well, and taking notes.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook makes a very clear argument that NO KINETIC ENERGY DEVICE “dustified” the World Trade Center complex. You now have a D and may have to take the course over to get credit.
Excuse my French. WTF? I don't know what you mean by "kinetic energy device?" I don't know why you keep bringing it up.
it is disinformation to make claims of ANY KINETIC DEVICE having to do with the destruction. Maybe you lack the critical thinking skills to understand this or you have been brainwashed to the point that you can not understand the evidence as it is presented.
Woa, cowboy!
I hope you'll be my instructor when I take the course over for credit.
No comments:
Post a Comment