Señor El Once : salvage and keep in play
Mr. HybridRogue1 on April 12, 2012 at 9:42 am
I have moved over into the pro-CIT camp after reading Onesliceshort’s very compelling piece last night. So this is as close to a total ‘conversion’ as I have had in some time.
Kudos for having the moxie to be able change your mind based on evidence and compelling analysis. In your mind (mine as well), the Pentagon strike takes on more of a tint of a Hollywood production. "Rather than having a real plane hit the Pentagon, let's just have the military-corporate media say that it did. We'll have a real plane buzz the Pentagon and find some other way of inflicting damage on those pesky investigators in the Office of Naval Intelligence to get them to shut up about the missing $2.3 trillion."
Earlier, you had made the following statement HybridRogue1 on April 11, 2012 at 10:24 pm
[M]y view is that there were no hijackings. That re-worked planes, most likely Boeing hull frames and wings, were specially created by the military for this op. Hardened wing edges, perhaps titanium edges reinforced by kavlar – juiced up engines with special fan blades to fly in the thicker ground level atmosphere. All flown by tamper proof remote control. They may have carried ordinance and fired missiles nanoseconds before their impacts. That is my best guess as far as the aircraft used in the operation.
Is there anything from the above statement that you want to salvage and keep in play (and/or maybe apply to WTC)?
Much of the Pentagon damage suggests a missile strike. The issue for me is that flying missiles are both visible and audible, and to my knowledge there are no witnesses to missiles flying parallel courses with a plane. My limited research into missiles depicts them with a tell-tale rocket (or jet) exhaust trail. To allow the missile to generate the appropriate thrust to get up to "ramming speed" with enough manueverability to get to the target that isn't on the plane's flight path, it would have to be launched "seconds" sooner and therefore be visible for several hundred feet (or more) flying a parallel path.
This is why I floated the idea of the missile really being in the construction trailer than allegedly housed a generator.
For that matter, though, the Pentagon is allegedly ringed with all sorts of defense mechanisms. Reason suggests that one could conceivably be reprogrammed and targeted at the Pentagon. Of course, its activation would be noticed, as would the empty silo. The construction trailer seems like a better option. And we have all of those animations of a plane hitting the Pentagon to thank for calling attention to that trailer to explain how it got clipped by the plane and moved from a parallel or perpendicular parking position to one that is askew and in near alignment with the damage path.
As for re-applying those "hardened aircraft" to the towers? Well, this is what debunkers of no-planes (like the very same Frank Legge) try to do in order to explain manueverability (& speed) at low altitude and heavy air exceeding the capabilities of the alleged aircraft. Also, to explain the lack of crash physics and the wing-tip to wing-tip cartoon outline of the plane on the buildings.
Seems like such a waste to harden a plane just so it can be destroyed (although much of the military's arsenal of bombs and missiles suggests a use-it-once-and-be-gone mentality). The real waste is that pixels on the telly and military-corporate media complicity can do a much more effective job of telling the masses what they saw and what they didn't see. And they were going to have to reach into this psyops hypno-bag extensively anyway.
Reminds me of Star Trek and how transporters came into being. I understand that the makers of the show didn't want to waste precious minutes of each and every show with the riggamarole of launching, flying, & landing shuttles, so they dreamed up transporters to get the crew instantly where they needed to be on the planet. Once explained and demonstrated a few times, the audience bought it. Problem solved.
Not that everything on 9/11 had to be the same modus operandus, but two-out-of-four Pennsylvania and the Pentagon scream of "no plane crashes." The remaining two at the towers have similar issues. Of all the bunk we've experienced with Sgt. Shack, no-planes might be the kernel of truth that his circus wants to distract us from.
Señor El Once : runway 15
Dear Mr. Good, you wrote:
… runway 15 is not long enough for a 757
How quickly you forget, or how quickly you are eager to ramp up the disinformation merry-go-round that we’ve ridden before.
In these very forums it was proven that runway 15 was long enough for a 757. Particularly when it was a sunny day. Particularly when the (auto?) pilot was exceptional, having already demonstrated a precision 330 degree 2000 foot descending spiral. Particularly when it might not have been the proported 757. Yes, runway 15 was short and not recommended for passenger carrying 757?s, but when these are taken off the table, conclusions change.
Mr. Good, consider your hands slapped.
+++++++++++
2012-04-16
Mr. Good writes and entry intended to restart a merry-go-round:
Since a real 757 has zero chance of escaping unnoticed, it’s natural to associate the flyover theory with “no planes” and hologram theories.
Contrary to your bold statements April 15, 2012 at 10:19 pm in another thread just a couple of hours before this one, the 757 [or whatever model it was] was noticed on its path out of there and did have a place to go in the form of runway 15.
The association between fly-over and “no planes” and hologram theories is made entirely by you. This is thus an example of you putting words in our mouth, eh?
All witnesses say there was a plane. The issue is that scant few can actually claim it impacted the Pentagon. They have the data points of (a) [alleged] planes hitting towers in NYC and repeated footage of those plane pixels all over the networks, (b) seeing a low-flying plane on a path to the Pentagon, and (c) an explosion at the Pentagon more or less in the path of the visible plane. Ergo, they extrapolate that a real plane really hit the Pentagon to account for the explosion, although they didn't see it. Cognitive dissonance at work.
So, who ordered you into this discussion? Why your sudden return? And with retread arguments, no less. Tsk, tsk.
Señor El Once : wild-ass speculation about downed lightpoles
nobody has ever put forth a plausible explanation for how the lightpoles could be faked.
Wild-ass speculation.
Work could begin as soon as the September 10, 2001 evening rush hour was over and the sun had set. The task itself would not take all night long, so could be delayed such that completion was an hour or two before sunrise and the September 11, 2001 morning rush hour.
Use a cherry-picker to attach a cable up high on a light pole. The other end of the cable is attached to a tow truck that pulls it over. Once the poles are on the ground, tools akin to a fireman's jaws-of-life set to squeeze puts a crimp or two into the light poles or outright tears it into two to simulate where the wings hit. Of course, the jaws-of-life could crimp things from the cherry-picker as well, and would thereby have a nice notched area for the cable to rest in to facilitate the pull-down. Having the cable afixed higher up gives it more leverage on the base to bend & break its bolts. Up high is where the alleged wing impact force was applied, so is where the cable would need to be afixed.
Most of the downed light poles can be left at the side of the road, in the grass, or dragged to their "throw down" positions (not on the road). Once the small crew had completed their task and were gone, traffic would hardly notice or care what rested there.
Of course, a pole or two could be left standing with their crimps up high and with their bases rigged to fail on command so that they would fall into the road, mess with traffic, and eye-witness testimony.
It would be easy to make or acquire bent or sheared bolts from light poles that had been damaged from other vehicle-versus-light-pole accidents. The light poles do not need 4 bolts to hold them in place for a day or two with known good weather; one or two would suffice. Therefore, a day or two before 9/11, one good bolt or three on some of the lamp posts could be substituted with bent salvaged bolts from other light pole damages. Only the remaining good bolt or two would need to be rigged to fail on command.
Lloyd's cab is another situation. According to his story, a full length light pole impaled his car. He and another man (from another car?) lifted it out. Yet his hood was undamaged, and a full-length pole would have been two heavy and unwieldy for just two people. More likely, it wasn't a full-length pole, but a smaller fragment that two people could carry.
Señor El Once : noticing different from noting importance
Mr. Good,
Driving and being on the lookout for the unexpected and noticing such [e.g., downed light poles] is different than noting it as important or relevant and bringing it to the attention of others.
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and its slick video.
Of the few morning rush hour drivers who might have noticed light poles on the ground, what importance are they going to make of this? What connection would they make with light poles allegedly hit by a plane that would allegedly hit the Pentagon shortly after their commute took them by? And if their commute took them regularly by the Pentagon, how distinct is their recollection going to be regarding what detail they saw when?
My goodness, how many years went by before CIT did their interviews?
Señor El Once : nervous desparation
Mr. Syed writes:
For me, it’s the timing that’s most suspicious... After losing the debate, [so-and-so] shuts up... for a couple months; then he went back on the warpath..., pretending the debate had never ocurred. When people not just promote bad info but attack genuine investigators, my agent-dar goes sky high.
And with that being said, Mr. Brian Good enters this discussion promoting the very debunked points from his last visit: runway 15 was too short.
Like clockwork. Indeed as Mr. Syed writes:
You can just feel their nervous desparation.
Señor El Once : ho-hum carousel
Dear Mr. Good,
Please study our previous discussion. No sense you re-hashing the same points, that were addressed just a little bit later in the same thread, where you chime in like clockwork with the identical overstatement of the importance of planespotters, ATCs, airport employees, and pilots. [You brought them up; you provide the links. How observant and important are any of them other than ATCs?]
To your question:
what do you do with the plane? Grind it into little pieces and flush it down the toilet?
Ho-hum. This was addressed as well. For the readers benefit, what happened on the minute or within a minute of the flyover plane [my supposition] landing on Runway 15? The order went out to land all aircraft flying over the continental United States. If the flyover [and landed] plane was not the alleged plane in terms of tail number and serial number parts, etc., not much would have to be done to the plane [except make sure tail numbers were changed -- maybe back to their original configuration]. It would be one plane among many dozens parked at the airport and then days later flown to staging airports for resumption of business as usual. Hidden in plane sight (pun intended).
I really don't care whether or not you address Mr. McKee's query that would have put all further postings of yours into the unpublished moderation queue until you did. (You snuck some by Mr. McKee.) Alas, your bot-antics here in re-grinding the same choking chow haven't gone unnoticed. Your trend-line isn't ascending.
Señor El Once : aircraft speed
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1, you asked multiple participants in this thread:
What are the names of the witnesses who witnessed the flyover of the plane?
I do not know. Flyover isn't one of the trick ponies that I ride. Mr. OneSliceShort is much more knowledgeable and probably has already posted answers to your question.
I did run across this video, which I assume is from CIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=L5mT8Jbcd-A
While we are watching videos, here's something about aircraft speed that my WTC no-planes trick pony like to lap up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=V5zvCdD9D1A
Señor El Once : full-sprectrum dominance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
Full-spectrum dominance is a military concept whereby a joint military structure achieves control over all elements of the battlespace using land, air, maritime and space based assets. Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained
Electromagnetic spectrum and information space relate to both jamming (& disabling) and hijacking.
William J. Lynn, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, states that "as a doctrinal matter, the Pentagon has formally recognized cyberspace as a new domain in warfare . . . [which] has become just as critical to military operations as land, sea, air, and space."
In July 2009, Madsen released a report saying there was a Q Group within the National Security Agency tasked with concealing US government involvement in 9/11.
And if they can't conceal it, they can sure as hell obscufate it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_warfare
The term Information Warfare (IW) is primarily an American concept involving the use and management of information technology in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance(s) that one's own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation to demoralize or manipulate[1] the enemy and the public, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information-collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare is closely linked to psychological warfare.
Here's a quote from me:
A recent dawning in my own understanding of 9/11 is the depressing fact that the public during our lifetimes (and our kids) will never, ever get an objective investigation based on open-access to government, military, & media archives. At this point in time, everything you or I think we know about 9/11 is disinformation. It all requires pain-staking vetting. When 9/11 Truthers ... dismiss disinformation sources out-of-hand ..., you become a tool of disinformation in advancing its agenda, which includes taking out of play many nuggets of truth.
Señor El Once : unwillingness to acknowledge
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
I may come under scrutiny for my dialog with Keenan as well. But I made it clear to him that I didn’t want to go into explaining why I think he is wrong – as it is a grand topic, a panorama topic, and nothing that can be finalized in a diverse thread like this. If we had the time and space for that discussion I would be fine with it – but it would utterly overwhelm the thread here.
The solution is easy. Write up an article and have Mr. McKee post it and give you full credit as a guest author. In such a manner, you'll have our own thread to utterly overwhelm.
Is the book "The Gods of Eden" by William Bramely (sp?) [or similar books] also in your collection and does its theme also fit into your grand, panorama topic? Such is my level of duped useful idiotness, I am wide open to its themes, yet am uncertain to its modern day applicability.
Be that as it may, you deserve to be knocked around by your CIT flip-flopping. Another data point in your trend line. Previous data points include your unwillingness to acknowledge that:
- The nano-thermite sacred cow has been slaughtered because it is unable to address hot-spot duration. [Its ability to address pulverization is an assumption that I've not challenged for the sake of discussion, but may also be proven wrong.]
- The speculation into other destructive mechanisms and their energy sources being more applicable, yet you detour away from this.
- The pixels of planes is all the evidence we have of real planes. [Interesting that many of your previous employers were involved in the very same genre of making animation & pixels-on-the-telly appear real].
- The good, the bad, and the ugly are unaddressed from various sources (e.g., Dr. Wood, September Clues). Emphasis was on the good, because even as their champion, I acknowledge and have experienced the bad & ugly contained therein. I know that the bad & ugly do not rise up to the level of being able to overwhelm those good & tasty nuggets of truth contained therein.
Señor El Once : nugget of truth is still banging away
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes;
And I will say I disagree to your thermate debunko-brag much more than anything about the North-side argument.
Of course neither of us wants to ride this merry-go-round again. But regardless of your disagreement to the content of my bragging, the nugget of truth is still banging away like Maxwell's Silver Hammer regarding features of the destruction and aftermath being attributed to nano-thermite that boojie woojie high school chemistry proves it cannot address.
I would be tickled pink to have this nugget of truth proven (with correctly applied science and evidence) to be fool's gold. You've had most of March and April to contact Dr. Jones on this matter and have him defend nano-thermite.
Who did you turn to? Frank Legge, someone with his own not-so-good reputation. Yet even he writes something you ought to be able to agree with (but can't bring yourself to):
All we can say, regarding the rather amazingly long duration, is that the amount of material must have been surprisingly large.
EXACTLY MY POINT!!! Not just "surprisingly large"; massively "ginormous". So massively ginormous that it represents improbable Occam Razor logistics, particularly when other devices in the arsensal don't have such issues and probably had Generals & Majors with itchy trigger fingers literally dying to deploy them.
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
But I still am firmly set against, the Shack jive and the Wood woowoo.
Certainly, the Shack jive was rather blatant, but you dance over more nuggets that you are too eager to ditch. Your persona exhibits contradictions. For example, Bernay and the manipulation of the masses is of great interest to you. You bring up full spectrum domination. You are a self-proclaimed expert in the arts, particular the digital arts, and have an impressive resume of having worked for lots of studios who make their living creating works for the silver-screen and telly that essentially makes believable the unbelievable through digital means.
Yet the contradiction is how quickly you dismiss all nuggets of truth contained within September Clues. This isn't to say that Shack's shuck-and-jive on certain topics did not merit being knocked down, because the defense of those topics did. But the proven issues with pixels on the telly from inconsistencies from view-to-view to no crash physics and improbably speeds? These aren't nuggets of truth that you are objective enough to acknowledge even when they are directly in line with the trend lines going back almost a century from Bernay.
As for the Wood woowoo? Here you were bragging about what's in your library and what you've read to demonstrate your intellect and breadth of study and knowledge of worldly things, yet when the Wood woowoo is thrust before you as a symbol of objectivity, a low benchmark and starting point for the debate, you fail... Miserably and continually to this day. Don't have it and never read it, eh? Such a strong, open-minded, and objective position for discussion, eh?
Too many nuggets of truth are in Wood woowoo to make it not woowoo in its entirety. Even for the isolated items that I suspect as being woowoo, it isn't enough to taint my recommendation of Dr. Wood's textbook to honest seekers of 9/11 truth.
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
But I still am firmly set against, ... your…[hmmm??]…whatever you are on to now about the hot spots in the rubble.
The hot spots are evidence that lack an explanation that can stand up to: boojie woojie high school chemistry. And you are firmly set against such evidence? Clearly. In the thread I linked above, your postings outnumber mine by about three-to-one, yet nary a sliver of enlightening sunshine could slip in to loosen what you are firmly set against.
Señor El Once : CIT's flyover
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Just wanted to express to you kudos for the detailed links and references that you post. I acknowledge the nuggets of truth from CIT's flyover, as well.
The tag-teaming A-Team of the NSA Q Group seems to be active here, as would be expected given the high quality of Mr. McKee's articles and blog moderation, as well as the themes that we respectfully and intelligently try to address in the discussion. The agents here are clearly more talented than the hit-and-run bots of yesteryear.
The perspective you should keep in mind is to write for the readers and latter-day-lurkers, whereby postings from others gives you the opportunity to enlighten the masses more.
Remember that a useful debate tactic is sometimes to ignore or to not respond directly.
Señor El Once : Newtonian physics does allow reverse
Dr. Fetzer wrote:
...same effects as those lampposts traveling 500 mph hitting a stationary plane: its wing would have been ripped off.
Mr. HybridRogue1 replied:
I have heard this assertion before, and I don’t buy it. There is the whole issue of weigh– coupled with inertia. You cannot simply reverse the scenario as stated above. It is not the same physics as a bat and a ball. The overall weight of the plane and the forward momentum is the core factors in this equation.
Exposing your credentials in boojie woojie high school physics again, Mr. HybridRogue1? Man, you can imagine how much I hate pointing this out.
To your chagrin, Newtonian physics does allow thinkers to reverse "a plane's wings hitting a lamp post at 500 mph" to become "a lamp post hitting a plane's wings at 500 mph" or even "a lamp post flung by a tornado at 250 mph into a plane's wing traveling 250 mph in the opposite direction."
The point in all of this is that damage to the plane's wing would be crippling and questions whether the plane could even remain in flight.
As for the overall weight of the plane and forward momentum, this factors into which direction and what speed its fuselage and wing fragments continues to travel after impact. The strength of the plane's wings and the strength of the joint of the wings to the fuselage are entirely different matters. And you also neglect that one end of the lamp post was bolted to a concrete foundation.
Of course, all of us are making the bad-ass assumption that the plane was actually traveling at 500 mph at ~100 feet above sea level.
Señor El Once : NOC flight path into the Pentagon did not happen
Dear Mr. TruthMakesPeace,
Your piece has potentially many nuggets of truth. If the alleged commercial planes were actually involved, then RC of navigation, communications, Cabin Air Pressure Outflow Valve (CAPOV), and voice morphing software seem within the realm of plausibility with regards to operational parameters. You wrote:
By computerized RC, the plane made a large loop, then flew North of Citgo, instead of the planned southern approach (possibly blown off course), into the Pentagon, Light poles were staged.
Although the deep "directional" damage into a few rings of the Pentagon was undoubtedly staged and enhanced to enforce the belief of the SOC flight path, this does not mean that a plane flying the NOC flight path could enter into the staged Pentagon entrance hole and have all damage indications (within the building) still being SOC.
Had you been paying attention to Mr. OneSliceShort, his videos, and his satillite images of light pole and sign positions, you would see that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route. To avoid the poles, it would have been g-forces impossible to fly over such obstacles, then swoop down, and level off for the ground floor entrance hole that did not affect the foundation with any form of an impact crater.
To underscore why this NOC flight path into the Pentagon did not happen, we can point to the age old argument of insufficient airplane debris. Where was the tail, the wings, the luggage, the seats, etc.? SOC or NOC, the question remains: where was the plane in the damage?
A new spark of insight is elevating a nugget of truth I had not seen before. Namely, the light poles had to be staged as per the operation even if an actual plane were to have flown SOC and had been found lodged in the Pentagon. Why? Because if they wouldn't have removed the light poles from the planned flight path, physics suggests that those poles might have damaged the aircraft significantly to the point of starting its disintegration (and explosion) over the lawn of the Pentagon and thereby not inflicting enough damage on the Office of Naval Intelligence who were investigating the $2.3 trillion in missing DoD expenditures. Remember the objectives.
Señor El Once : show, don't tell
Dear Mr. OneSliceShort,
Too much of a good thing is still too much.
I am not Mr. McKee, nor do I speak for him. I have been participating on T&S not quite since its inception or beginnings, but certainly early. I helped set the tone and deal with provocateurs along the way who would otherwise spoil the harmony of rational and intelligent debate.
Alas, in this role, I now feel overwhelmed due to employment matters at the precise time T&S seems to be overrun with new participants as well as the active return of others with reputations and provocateur agendas. Your assistance is certainly appreciated by Mr. McKee and lurker readers.
I disagree with the extent and details of your tactics that involves copy & paste of both an overview of the tactic, an unrelated example, and an almost unrelated "Proper Response." This becomes unoriginal very fast. And the proper response isn't. That is to say, it starts with a conclusion that is a flame-bait attack [e.g., "You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics."] The listed proper responses with their accusatory "you are pulling crap" language are not helpful in great measure, and are probably deserving of being edited out before publication.
A lesson of all great (fiction) writers is to show, don't tell. Show how their argument misses the point on purpose. Show where their argument is crap. This will set the knife pretty deep all by itself. No sense twisting the knife with insults.
Valued participants of T&S -- even those I disagree with -- make an effort at least on the first spin on the merry-go-round to be original and creative. In my books, it is fine to write something like:
I couldn't help but noticing in your reply tactic #14 having to do with Demanding a Complete Solution when you wrote: [...] All of the puzzle pieces do not have to be present in order to get an idea of what the picture is.
If you are going to call someone out for using a known ploy, then tailor your response to the specifics of their comments. Pay attention to the link I placed over the tactic, so that research is still possible without boring readers and achieves your goals.
People might call me old fashioned or a fuddy-duddy for the stilted "dear Mr. so-and-so saluations I put on my postings. I chuckle that this was even used as an excuse once to ban me from a (disinfo) forum, because the moderator thought I was being sarcastic in my (consistent use of) honorifics. [Let's ignore the fact that he and his minions were losing the Dr. Wood debate.]
I like to think of it as the "James Bond Effect", whereby even 007's most hated enemies would suppress their emotions and address him in the formal "So good of you to make your appearance, Mr. Bond."
When I start out in the formal, it tends to curb my baser instincts on what I would utter in response. The high road is indeed higher. The difference from having kept my cool as opposed to those going off in ad hominem homage is priceless.
Señor El Once : Q.E.D. jumps some steps and exposes sloppy logic errors
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Because I'm for the most part a no-planer and the resident champion of September Clues here, it pains me to point out that your Q.E.D. jumps some steps and exposes sloppy logic errors. You wrote:
Since Flights 11 and 77 were not even scheduled to fly that day, those crash scenes have to have been faked. ... We have videos that are supposed to show Flight 11 hitting the North Tower and Flight 175 the South. Given the evidence above, neither can have happened, where both planes were faked.
Flights 11 and 77 not being schedule to fly on 9/11 only questions the extent of the alleged involvement of those specific aircraft. "Faked" is such a heavy description that you've left without clarifiers. If an actual aircraft were involved in those crash scenes, how "fake" does it make the crash scenes just because the aircraft were (purposely and disingenuously) misidentified as the alleged aircraft?
In my mind, an actual albeit misidentified aircraft crash does not constitute a fake crash scene. My pointing this out just means that you are missing steps required for the true Q.E.D. proof of what was faked.
The way I see it, Flights 11 and 77 not being schedule to fly on 9/11 and your other points about where aircraft were at the time of significant events at the WTC and Pentagon are data points. They combine well with data points about the lack of crash physics, excessive speeds, inconsistent flight paths, faking of radar blips (as per the multiple military exercises), no collaboration of serial numbered aircraft parts to actual aircrafts, and obvious tainting of imagery with pixels-of-planes.
FTR, I believe that media imagery of aircraft at the WTC was faked: pixels on the telly. It became truly a low-risk operation compared to real planes. I believe that full spectrum domination translated on 9/11 to control of the network imagery and message to being the OCT fairy tale. The Clues Forum (and Mr. OneBornFree) take these nuggets of truth and bury them with concepts that they have only marginally provided convincing proof: the ole "take ownership of a topic and run it into the weeds" ploy.
Señor El Once : No physics laws were violated?
Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts,
As the resident champion of no-planes (at the WTC), I think you make some valid points about Mr. OneBornFree's defense of the same. I have chided him in other threads for his obtuse debating behavior being counter productive to an agenda of truth.
You wrote:
onebornfree, you don’t know your physics.
This has been proven true in other venues. No argument there. (However, it doesn't apply to me, so be careful.)
You continued:
Kinetic Energy explains how fast moving planes were able to penetrate the sides of the steel towers. No physics laws were violated.
Not completely true.
- The speed of the aircraft at sea level in heavy air exceeding its maximum rating at high altitude violates laws of physics both for the integrity of the structure of the aircraft as well as the thrust capabilities of the engines to even obtain that speed in anything other than a steep dive -- which the telly pixels don't show.
- The aircraft exhibiting no crash physics in terms of deformation and deceleration violates laws of physics.
- The tail of the aircraft entering the towers and into its own fuselage space at the same speed it traveled through thin air violates laws of physics.
- The miraculous zoom-in's that upon reverse-play zoom-out's did not show the aircraft where its calculated speed predicts where it should be violates laws of physics.
- The differences in depicted flight path from view-to-view violates laws of physics.
Consider the portion of the wing from the engines out to the tips as well as the tail. These are not inherently strong structures; they are in fact built with light material. These materials slicing through the inherently strong steel mesh structure of the outer walls violates laws of physics. Slicing up and pieces bouncing off were to be expected, but didn't happen.
The “nose out” disinfo has been debunked years ago.
No it hasn't. You can provide links, though. And even if attempts on this facet were made and even validated, it is but one facet.
[Mr. OneBornFree is known for not presenting the strongest NPT arguments because he has two agendas. Agenda 1 is to so poorly defend NPT that forums like this will write it as not being worthy of further research. Assuming Agenda 1 fails, Agenda 2 is to hook potential believers to the point they disqualify all imagery so that you can't use it to prove squat about anything.]
All of the attempted debunking of the September Clues that I've seen -- even by Anthony Lawson -- run out of steam pretty quickly and jump to the conclusion: "False in one, false in all; I just need to prove this one nugget as fool's gold and then can dismiss the rest of the body of work."
Stronger arguments for NPT would be the already mentioned miracle zoom-in's that don't show the plane on reverse-play zoom-out's and the four different versions from a helicopter: (1) one with nothing, just the explosion; (2) one with an orb; (3) one with the background masked out to be sky and a plane flying some whacked out different trajectory; (4) one with the orb replaced with pixels almost resembling a plane, which in my estimation was a very late entry. In any event, the four different versions proves that some video manipulation happened and is a huge smoking gun to legitimately get us to question 9/11 imagery.
Craig, I really hope that this place does not become overrun by these NPT disinfo trolls. It would be a shame, as there aren’t very many places left for intelligent discussion on 9/11 issues.
I am NPT. I suppose you could even call me a troll, but I've been on T&S a long time and try to play well with everyone.
Disinfo? In my case, I'm duped. All it takes is intelligent discussion using properly applied science and analysis to dupe me another way and we can be in agreement. I'd like to be set straight, if I am wrong.
Alas, this NPT is forbidden in most forums, and curiously so. This is always a red flag. Dr. Wood is also forbidden. Few have the nuggets to mine the aforementioned for nuggets of truth. I believe that all -- literally everything -- we have on 9/11 is disinformation, so we have to be mining it for nuggets of truth.
Mr. OneSliceShort references an article that in other places is called 25 Traits of a Disinformationalist. Sorry to say that Mr. OneBornFree and even Mr. Shack himself exhibit this.
#16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. They don't off anybody, but their agenda doesn't stop with distrust all 9/11 imagery. They want it all off of the table, even images of the aftermath and clean-up. Can't use it to prove squat.
#20. False evidence. This is my conclusion from having looked at the Clues Forums that tries to make the case the collapse imagery is all faked and the aftermath imagery is all faked.
#22. Manufacture a new truth. Hollow towers comes to mind. Some level of SimVictims as well.
#23. Create bigger distractions. SimVictims was probably the Clues Forums attempt in this area. Certainly very emotional and designed to really piss people off. I don't discount that some degree of this was in play given that it was part of Operation Northwood; but the extent remains in question.
My point is that NPT is championed (by Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree) in such a manner to shoot holes in nuggets of truth and disinfo alike. Between these and some who engage them, the design is get readers to the point where they would sooner ban them (and their topics) than explore this. Plays by design right into the hand of disinfo to get nuggets of truth swept off of the table.
So in conclusion, we know that disinformation games are being played right within the very pixels of this thread of Mr. McKee's blog. All disinformation, to have any traction, must be built on a solid foundation of truth.
I encourage participants to keep an open mind, to explore things on their own, to come to your own conclusions, to judge nuggets of both truth and disinfo, and to not hastily dismiss nuggets of truth due to the actions of others. Oh, and remain respectful while you're ripping faulty concepts or poor arguments a new one.
Señor El Once : thump you for your stupid actions
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
What Schadenfreude I get when participants like Mr. Syed thump you for your stupid actions here.
One day, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly write an article on no-planes and another on Dr. Wood. I expect both articles will be unsatisfactory to both their champions and their die-hard opponents, because the nuanced truth will shoot holes in the dug-in-encampments and myth-making of both.
I agree with you that NPT has a place in this thread. After all, NOC flight path and fly-over ultimately means "no plane hit the Pentagon", although an actual plane was deployed as part of the ruse. In terms of full-spectrum domination and military objectives to control the media in all operations, parallels between WTC NPT and NOC fly-over run deep.
But this hasn't really been your argument.
In fact, I've been in agreement with more of your opponent's points than yours. I view you as purposely trying to create a bad reputation for NPT, September Clues, Clues Forums, etc. precisely so that the tenor of responses of participants will swing negatively against NPT and no rational discussions can happen.
Therefore, I ask that you clean up your act. Don't start flame wars. Don't argue unreasonable and irrational points. Be objective in all things including criticism against that which you champion, because the modus operandus of the powers-against-us will clearly sow seeds of disinfo into all things. If you aren't cherry-picking nuggets of truth, you are (for lack of better terms) either an ignorant brain-dead wannabe or an agent with an agenda.
Because I'm the resident champion of no-planes (although I'd gladly give up these duties to some other rational thinker so I could be a "me, too" echo chamber), the fact is that the important nuggets of truth from that genre are probably already well represented. What does that make your participation? Needed or not? Valued or not? It says a lot when even I, as a duped useful idiot of a no-plane trick pony rider, must dress you down.
Here's a test of your objectivity. What elements of the Clues Forums and September Clues do you NOT believe? What elements of the same do you consider to be disinformation? Do you believe the whole kit-and-caboodle?
Señor El Once : take your own advice and ignore me
Dear Mr. OneBornFree,
Clap! Clap! Clap! Bravo! Brav-oh!
Loved your witty response! Would have been even more effective, however, if you would have taken your own advice and ignored me.
It was so precious, I just couldn't help but extract and repeat the highlights (with some minor corrections):
Let me make myself perfectly clear... I have NO intention of conversing with yourself, or hybridrogue1, [or anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude], about anything relating to what I believe did or [more importantly, could not have] happened at NYC, the Pentagon, or in PA on 9/11. After this post, your posts will be studiously ignored by me.
By the expression "anybody else who displays similar manners and attitude", is that a reference to anybody else who "knows their shit & science better, defends their shit & case better, pokes legitimate holes in my own shit & weak knowledge, exposes my agenda for what it is, and pegs me correctly for what I am?" Got a problem with cherry-picking nuggets of truth?
You ignore me and more importantly, my advice, at your own peril in Mr. McKee's forums. The natives appear restless for the banishment of an agent. You're building yourself up to be a likely candidate and are pushing the limits, because maybe you know it could be your swan song. [Doesn't have to be that way.]
Maybe we should escalate the test of your objectivity as a condition of continued participation here?
Here’s a test of your objectivity.
- What elements of the Clues Forums and September Clues do you NOT believe?
- What elements of the same do you consider to be disinformation?
- Do you believe the whole kit-and-caboodle of the Clues Forums and September Clues?
Señor El Once : made these arguments before and again overstepped your case
Dear Mr. Good,
You've made these arguments before and again overstepped your case just to be contrary.
No-plane-at-WTC2 is impossible for the very simple reason that the perps had no control over who might focus a video camera on the WTC and if the building were to blow up without the benefit of an airplane, dozens of video cameras might record that.
Other than rumors of electronic jamming and blocking and other than pushing observers back a block or more, you are right that "the perps had no control over who might focus a video camera on the WTC."
But what they did have control over was what amateur videos would make it out to a wider audience through the military-corporate media and what video manipulation such footage might undergo before such wider publication. Evan Fairbanks said himself that he was surprised at what his footage contained after he gave it to "authorities" or his "employers" and saw it broadcast live.
Face it: if you or I or just about anyone would have been lucky enough to capture a recording of the buildings blowing up without the benefit of an airplane, we wouldn't be thinking how curious this was. No! Due to the repeat-repeat-repeat of the pixel planes, we would be thinking: "Damn! There were real planes and I was unlucky enough to have missed the money shot. No sense giving this footage out; it is boring and inconclusive compared to those other 44 shots of an airplane. No money for me. No five minutes of fame. No nada. Damn."
The flyover hypothesis is impossible for the very same reason. There were hundreds of high-rise rooms looking out over the Pentagon and the perps had no control over who might set up a camera the morning of 9/11 and leave it running just on the chance that something interesting might happen
Who cares how many hundreds of hotel rooms and offices looked out over the Pentagon? Not a single one of them had any reason at all to be studying the Pentagon intently at the moment of impact (or even seconds before) with eye balls, let alone with a camera.
And oh! The couple of dozen or so legitimate security cameras that did have reason to have some or all of the Pentagon in their view finders? Their footage was snapped up rather quickly by the FBI and never... no, never... ever released to the public in 10 years, except for 5 fateful and inconclusive frames.
Going around in circles, I see, Mr. Good. You and Mr. OneBornFree might have a lot to talk about in your free time away from Truth & Shadows.
Señor El Once : thinking and reconsidering perspectives
Dear Mr. KeenanRoberts and the honorable participants of Truth & Shadows,
I apologize for not responding under your posting of April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm. I felt an off-shoot of the topic deserved to be promoted to the top level.
You make excellent points on No-Planes (NP) and its physics that certainly have me thinking and reconsidering perspectives. In fact, many nuggets of truth on related but tangential topics have been jarred free for me to see.
For the sake of discussion at this point (because you tire of it), let's assume your points on physics and poor quality video to be more or less correct.
When the dust settles, two themes come into view. This passage from you is a lead-in for the first theme:
Anyway, here’s a few nuggets to chew on. I’m really not interested in spending any more time debating NPT, for reasons I’ve already stated. September Clues video is blatant disinfo because it was deceptively edited for the purpose of misleading the viewer. You say that just because there are some parts of it that are faulty doesn’t mean that it is false in its entirety. My response is that it doesn’t matter. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what? If the makers of the video were caught engaging in any disinformation, it cannot be considered a trustworthy or valid must be rejected, regardless of something(s) might be true in it. ... [T]his has been debated ad infinitum in other places.
I haven't seen it debated ad infinitum in other places. I haven't been everywhere or to JREF. I've been to 9/11 Blogger which is supposedly more mainstream 9/11 Truth; they banned me while in the registration process saying that certain topics (coincidentally the trick ponies I ride: NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood) were too contentuous. I don't discount this, given what online provacateurs can do.
I am personally experiencing a revelation in thought that is akin to a rabbit-hole tunnel collapse throwing formerly buried nuggets of truth down upon my head.
Nuggets of truth.
Nuggets of truth have to be mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from the disinformation sources before anyone should dismiss them. Why?
There is not a single facet of 9/11 that hasn't been run through the disinformation process. This includes even super duper nano-thermite [nugget of truth] that we are led to believe is the end-all-cure-all for explaining the destruction and its after math [nugget of disinformation].
Here is the incorrect framing:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what? If the makers of the video were caught engaging in any disinformation, it cannot be considered a trustworthy or valid must be rejected.
The proper extension to this analogy is:
We need to adopt a 9/11 survivalist mentality. The clock is broken. If we can't fix it, let's tear it apart and salvage useful gears, springs, and batteries for use later and in maybe fixing another broken clock. To get at truth, we can't afford to be a throw-away society.
A shiny nugget of truth is indeed September Clues and Dr. Wood's textbook as being "deceptively crafted for the purpose of misleading." But the bruise on my noggin came from a particularly hefty nugget regarding the lack of rational discussion on the topic. Where is the movie review or book report that goes chapter-by-chapter and gives us all three: the good, the bad, and the ugly? Who has the courage to see the good therein?
You lament the brain-dead trolling [on T&S of Mr. OneBornFree for Clues Forum and Mr. Goldberg for Dr. Wood's textbook]. It is suspect for sure, and I took no pleasure in clobbering them for their clumsy efforts. By my analysis, their worst fault is that they overlook the truly good in what they supposedly champion and in a display of ugly misframe the bad as good. Easy pickings to be debunked.
On the flip side, we have things like this statement from you:
Perhaps that special thread can be called “NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood” since those things all sort of go together and their champions mostly seem to be of the same breed, or the same trolling and spamming MO.
I'll ignore "same breed... trolling and spamming MO" comment. To a balanced degree that it applies to me, it also does not.
More importantly...
Sweep it out of sight, eh? Proving that the methods are numerous by which the derailment of objective review is attempted.
The reason that these topics -- NPT/VIdeo Fakery/Exotic Weapons/Judy Wood -- keep re-appearing is that they have unaddressed truths [e.g., massive energy requirements, anomalous after effects, full-sprectrum dominance in the military-corporate media]. Normal duped useful idiots like myself see this, but we are few who can articulate a stink. Any 9/11 theory-du-jour to be valid is required to address these nuggets of truth.
We should be fearless when we reach into disinformation pits to snag and rescue nuggets of truth.
Part one of such a thread already exists. Until Mr. McKee can write on these themes, this is as good a place for any for Part Two. It is rather appropo that the article is about Mr. Gage.
Brian Good : clutching at straws
Brian Good says:
April 19, 2012 at 1:20 am
Senor, Your claim that that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route is not true. Unless oneslice has updated his work (and I doubt it, because he’s still making the same erroneous claims he was making years ago) he erroneously demands that the plane fly so high that its lowest point clears the light poles. That is not necessary. The engines hang below the wings and the wings have considerable dihedral , so it is not necessary that the plane fly as high as oneslice claims.
Where’s the plane? Inside the building. Where would you expect it to be?
Yes, your observation of the possibility that staging the light poles was a necessary part achieving plane impact is important. It suggests then that a NoC flight path was a mistake. If that is true, the implication of an inside job is inescapable. Thus CIT’s unsupported flyover speculations are extremely irresponsible, because they have the effect of discrediting the NoC testimony that would be extremely important if it were believed.
Brian Good says:
April 19, 2012 at 1:56 am
Senor Once, you are clutching at straws, including the “dumb witness” theory.
Pray tell, how does electronic jamming work on battery-powered video cameras miles away from Ground Zero?
Why do you restrict the publishing options for home videos to corporate media? There are many options today.
You think somebody could shoot the view of the west side from Brooklyn, note that there was no airplane when WTC2 blew up, and then see the same view on the news with an airplane flying in and tell themselves “Aw shucks, I missed it!”? New Yorkers are not dumb.
Your belief that nobody had a reason to run a video camera on the Pentagon is silly. Tourists stay in hotels. Tourists have cameras. Tourists staying in their room to watch TV could be expected to set up a camera to record whatever happens at the Pentagon–whether it be armored vehicles getting stationed at the perimeter, an evacuation, the arrival of a motorcade, helicopters flying in and out. You put the camera on a tripod, you set it running, it shoots two hours of tape.
You are inventing reasons to ignore the obvious challenges to your beliefs just as the debunkers invent reasons to ignore the issues raised by 9/11 Truthers.
Brian Good says:
April 19, 2012 at 1:28 am
OSS, I attack the issues head on.
I point out that your claim that the light poles were “hidden” is not true–they were right out in the short grass visible from the off ramp, the on ramp, and the pike.
I point out that your claim that the cab was on the bridge is not true–photos clearly show it south of the bridge.
I point out that your claim that the NoC plane can not hit the Pentagon is based on your imposition of exaggerated ground-clearance requirements.
I point out that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery on a pogo stick. There was no way to control who might see or video the departing plane.
I point out that you have not one flyaway witness.
I point out that runway 15 is not used by 757s and so any 757 landing there would be very noteworthy. I point out that once the plane lands on runway 15 there’s no way to dispose of it.
Señor El Once : Assuming the validity of the obstacles
Among the many postings of dear Mr. Good were these three that I'll make brief commentary on in one go:
April 19, 2012 at 1:20 am
April 19, 2012 at 1:28 am
April 19, 2012 at 1:56 am
Mr. Good writes:
Senor, Your claim that that a NOC flight path into the Pentagon would not have been possible without downed light poles and signage along its route is not true.
My claim was based on the validity of the following image that shows light pole and signage placement with respect to a NOC flight path into the Pentagon. Prove it in error, and I will amend my claim.
http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Ligon911/closestnorthpathmissespolescringhol.jpg
from
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=51
Assuming the validity of the obstacles, the plane can either go around or over them.
One simulation shows the plane making steep almost-wing-dragging banking one way and then another to get from NOC to the SOC downed pole path. The simulation shows that it possible, but that the wildness of this manuever did not match eye-witness accounts.
An alternative is that the plane fly high enough to clear the poles and then swoop down to enter at ground level (yet leaving no crater in the foundation) in the extraordinary span of less than 400 feet, if memory serves me well on the width of the Pentagon lawn. Traveling at 500 mph (777 feet per second), this span is covered in 0.5 seconds. That pesky lack of a crater in the foundation kind of pours water of the inertia of an aircraft flying a downward trajectory from the height of the last NOC pole to the ground floor "entrance hole."
You write:
Yes, your observation of the possibility that staging the light poles was a necessary part achieving plane impact is important. It suggests then that a NoC flight path was a mistake. If that is true, the implication of an inside job is inescapable...
9/11 had lots of mistakes. The NOC flight path was probably one of them, as was WTC-7 not going down with the WTC-2 or WTC-1, telly news people talking about WTC-7 going down 20 minutes before it did, videos of emergency responders pushing people back from WTC-7 and saying it was going to come down, WTC-7 having 100 feet of measurable free-fall, the overkill pulverizing aspects of WTC-1 and 2, ...
The implication of an inside job is inescapable.
The continuation from you, however, is irresponsible, has no bearing, and is a very representative example of your truthy spin:
... Thus CIT’s unsupported flyover speculations are extremely irresponsible, because they have the effect of discrediting the NoC testimony that would be extremely important if it were believed.
I'm not going to go too deep into your other postings.
Pray tell, how does electronic jamming work on battery-powered video cameras miles away from Ground Zero?
Don't ask for research that you have no intention of validating. Here's a thread to give you a start.
Wild-ass speculation. Most electrical devices have at least one energy source (mains or battery) that undergoes conversion to different voltage levels as dictated by the requirements of various integrated circuits. Among the components used to convert energy are inductors and capacitors. These components can serve as antennas to receive incoming jamming electromagnetic signals at sufficient magnitude and appropriate frequency. In the parlay of the power management industry, these signals could trip built in protection circuitry (e.g., over-voltage protection).
Why do you restrict the publishing options for home videos to corporate media? There are many options today.
The operative phrase is many options today. Options 10 years ago? They existed, but they were the vanguard. Common cellphones (and electronics) of 2012 are worlds apart from those of 2001.
Jumping to your conclusion of that posting:
You are inventing reasons to ignore the obvious challenges to your beliefs just as the debunkers invent reasons to ignore the issues raised by 9/11 Truthers.
The so-called obvious challenges to my beliefs have not stepped up to the plate with obvious actual videos from tourists gawking out of hotel windows with video cameras or any additions to the 44 or so clips of the (alleged) 2nd plane strike. Other than what videos we know the govt suppressed from locations around the Pentagon, the public pool of 9/11 imagery isn't expanding by leaps and bounds any more.
I point out [to OSS] that [OSS's] claim that the NoC plane can not hit the Pentagon is based on your imposition of exaggerated ground-clearance requirements.
I point out to you that even removing the ground-clearance requirement, the direct NoC path cannot do all of these: miss poles, enter the near ground-level Pentagon hole, and avoid putting a crater into the foundation. Any last-split-second change from the NoC path to the SoC path that would benefit from staged down poles to enter the ground-floor hole would result in serious wing tilting that no witness observed.
I point out that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery on a pogo stick. There was no way to control who might see or video the departing plane.
Bad analogy. A better one is that a flyover plot would be like planning to escape from a bank robbery in a guard uniform and armored truck. They don't need to control who might be able to see or video the departing plane; they just need to control (a) what subordinates under their control say and (b) what gets edited for publication to the masses. [Paraphrased from Stalin: I care not what people vote for, but who counts the votes.]
I point out that you have not one flyaway witness.
Not true. I don't remember his name. (Roberts?) He was on some South dock area [which is a bit misnamed from its actual location.] Because he heard the explosion and saw smoke eventually over the building (and all the later talk of an aircraft hitting the Pentagon) and because he saw an aircraft flying away right after the explosion, his belief was that there were two planes.
I point out that runway 15 is not used by 757s and so any 757 landing there would be very noteworthy. I point out that once the plane lands on runway 15 there’s no way to dispose of it.
Runway 15 has been discussed before: ho-hum. While not recommended for fully-loaded 757's, a proven exceptional (auto-)pilot already at 100 feet could accomplish this. Noteworthy? Please cough up the names of the regular plane spotters and all of the anomalous things they noticed at Dulles on 9/11? We ought to have detailed records of all the unscheduled and unprecedented landing of aircraft due to the FAA edict sent out nation-wide at or close to the very minute the flyover plane would have been landing. At which point, the anomalous plane is one of many scattered throughout the airport, and all it needs is a tail number tweak. Disposed of in plane sight.
Meanwhile, I point out to you that you are playing games.
Keenan Roberts : address some of your points
keenanroberts says:
April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm
@Señor El Once
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Although I do not wish to have an in-depth discussion or debate on NPT at this time, as I’ve become thoroughly exhausted with the subject after having to deal with the same debunked crap for the last 6 years on various online discussion forums, I will respond to some of your points.
FIrst of all, It is not my preference to ban people because of their views, and I’ve never stated or implied that we should ban people for their views. My preference, as I’ve suggested to Craig, is to create a special thread where NPT discussion can be confined to so that other threads are not hijacked and spammed by the NPT folks, which is their MO too much of the time.
I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not like most of the NPT folks I”ve encountered over the years and display much better behavior. You do seem like a pretty reasonable and intelligent fellow.
Now, to address some of your points (I’m assuming that all of these are referring to the WTC crime scene unless otherwise stated):
“- The speed of the aircraft at sea level in heavy air exceeding its maximum rating at high altitude violates laws of physics both for the integrity of the structure of the aircraft as well as the thrust capabilities of the engines to even obtain that speed in anything other than a steep dive — which the telly pixels don’t show.”
A plane exceeding its particular maximum design specs and a plane violating the laws of physics are 2 completely different things. You seem to be confusing the 2 concepts. We don’t know what exact plane was used, though it seems that the government’s contention that a normal Boeing 767 passenger plane was used is false. I believe that most likely a modified Boeing, or another military aircraft that had higher maximum speed specs was used. Just because A plane exceeded its supposed or official design specs does not in any way prove that laws of physics were violated.
“- The aircraft exhibiting no crash physics in terms of deformation and deceleration violates laws of physics.”
This has not been proven. In order to prove this assertion, clear, high resolution videos need to be available in which the center of gravity of the plane can bee seen through the whole process to be able to make a determination. It is not sufficient to just look at the tail section to determine the rate of deceleration of the entire plane, because the tail section would continue on its forward momentum even as the front of the plane was already crumpling and ceasing its forward momentum. Most NPT advocates are using invalid methods and improper assumptions in their determinations.
In most cases, the videos are not of high enough resolution or of enough frames to clearly see. In many cases, the center of gravity of the plane was already obscured before enough frames passed to be able to sufficiently measure and calculate the deceleration.
“- The tail of the aircraft entering the towers and into its own fuselage space at the same speed it traveled through thin air violates laws of physics.”
Not true. The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum. The videos are not of high enough resolution and of sufficient frames per second to detect small decreases in forward momentum as the tail entered the building. There have been some studies done that did detect some deceleration. Look it up.
“Consider the portion of the wing from the engines out to the tips as well as the tail. These are not inherently strong structures; they are in fact built with light material. These materials slicing through the inherently strong steel mesh structure of the outer walls violates laws of physics. Slicing up and pieces bouncing off were to be expected, but didn’t happen.”
False. Look up Kinetic Energy. KE = 1/2 m * v^2 KE equals one half the mass times the velocity squared. Speed makes a HUGE difference in the penetrating power of one object into another. Things behave differently when accelerated to extremely high speeds. Why do you think bullets are made out of lead – the softest metal there is, even softer than aluminum? The reason is because when lead bullets are accelerated to thousands of feet per second in guns, the physics change, and suddenly those soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates. Consider also Karate masters able to bust wood and concrete with their bare hands when accelerated to high speeds. Consider that NASA worries about tiny little space particles punching holes through space vehicles because when the tiny particles are traveling at 20,000 mph in relation to the space vehicle, suddenly the tiny particles act as though they are stronger than several inches of steel. Consider that hurricanes can accelerate sticks and straw to puncture the trunks of trees.
Besides, the tips of the wings did break off, and the videos are not of high enough resolution to have captured all of the pieces that did break off. Nevertheless, Kinetic Energy perfectly explains
You should get a physics book and study the effects of Kinetic Energy.
Anyway, here’s a few nuggets to chew on. I’m really not interested in spending any more time debating NPT, for reasons I’ve already stated. September Clues video is blatant disinfo because it was deceptively edited for the purpose of misleading the viewer. You say that just because there are some parts of it that are faulty doesn’t mean that it is false in its entirety. My response is that it doesn’t matter. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. So what? If the makers of the video were caught engaging in any disinformation, it cannot be considered a trustworthy or valid must be rejected, regardless of something(s) might be true in it.
Anyway, that’s all I’m going to say on the matter at this point. I appreciate your willingness to have an intelligent and civil discussion on the issue. But this has been debated ad infinitum in other places.
Jim Fetzer : looks NOTHING LIKE a Boeing 767
Jim Fetzer says:
April 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo
9/11: Planes/No Planes and “Video Fakery”
Senor El Once seems to discount the fact that the image in the Naudet footage looks NOTHING LIKE a Boeing 767, while many witnesses reported seeing a plane that looked like A BOEING 767 enter the South Tower. Unless we discount all of the witness reports, we have to accept that they saw something that LOOKED LIKE a plane but was not a real plane.
Brian, your arguments are pointless because they used simulations of aircraft, not real planes. It would not have mattered how many cameras were recording, because NPT does not require that NO SIMULATIONS OF PLANES WERE USED but only that, in New York, Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower and Flight 175 did not hit the South. I have offered many arguments that support that conclusion and the dual tenets of NPT that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and that Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville. So you need to get a better grasp on NPT, because you arguments are, by and large, irrelevant to these questions. And if you think the flying thing in the Naudet video LOOKS LIKE a Boeing 767, you haven’t studied it. And the image of a plane shown in the footage of Flight 175 flies faster than possible for a standard Boeing 767, enters the South Tower in violation of Newton’s laws, and all that. Plus it has no strobe lights, casts no shadows, and has a left wing that disappears EVEN BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BUILDING. I’ve explained all of this in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video faker’” and in “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”. So do yourself a favor and study these articles.
keenanroberts seems to think the speed of the aircraft–which was analogous to an empty beer can–impacting with a massive 500,000-ton building–which was like a brick wall–matters, when Newton’s third law dictates that the effects of a plane flying 500 mph hitting a stationary building are the same as a statonary plane being hit by a 500,000-ton building moving at 500 mph. He is ignorant of physics and his arguments show it. Is he unaware of the damage done to a plane by impact with a tiny bird weighing a few ounces? It should have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, with bodies, seats and luggage fallen to the ground. But none of that happened.
What this means is that we are not watching a real plane but something that looks like a real plane but performs feats that no real plane can perform. It passes its entire length into this massive building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. That is impossible, unless a 500,000-ton building poses no more resistance to an aircraft in flight than does air. And Senor El Once seems to discount the fact that the image in the Naudet footage looks NOTHING LIKE a Boeing 767, while many witnesses reported seeing a plane that looked like A BOEING 767 enter the South Tower. Unless we discount all of the witness reports, we have to accept that they saw something that LOOKED LIKE a plane but was not a real plane.
I think it would we wise of persons like these to actually look at the evidence I have presented in “Planes/No Planes and ‘video fakery’” and “Reason and Rationality in Public Debate: The Case of Rob Balsamo”, because they are committing mistakes that they would not make if only they were more familiar with the evidence. We have to account for the witness reports as well as the laws of physics, where it turns out that both planes appear to have been simulated. It was not a matter of pixels after the event but of creating images that, without close inspection, could pass for planes hitting those buildings. But we know much more now, which I have laid out in detail in those two studies. Absent replicating them here, I strongly recommend that they study them.
Señor El Once : trend line of physics defying video footage
Dear Participants of this Truth & Shadows Thread,
I apologize for the delay in researching and writing this response, for its length, and for not following the on-going discussion. I'll catch up later, but it appeared to me to be going in circles and into flame wars.
As a starting point for this posting, I had prepared a point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. KeenanRoberts April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm posting. The deeper I got into it, though, the more I realized what games he was playing to keep real airplanes and real videos in consideration at the WTC.
Brief summary: Mr. KeenanRoberts dismisses measuring the physics from the imagery of the plane impacts because they aren't high-speed enough to measure small changes in, say, the tail section's velocity. He argues the tail section could continue with its momentum unaffected by the front of the fuselage smacking into the box columns of the outer structure because of fuselage crumpling. Yet where is that evidence of crumpling happening? It certainly didn't happen where the box columns of the wall started, because that would have been captured on even a slow-speed video. Did a rigid fuselage penetrate the box columns only to then succumb to crumpling when it hit the even bigger box columns of the central core? Highly unlikely, because if the bigger steel box columns of the inner-core were to induce crumpling, then so would the outer box columns.
I don't need to belabor this point, because the other data points of this posting will match with the trend line of physics defying video footage.
The following video [Constallation plane crash] at about the 1:00 mark shows wooden poles slicing through the aircraft wings before themselves getting cut down.
The video is not 100% applicable, but it does reveal some interesting characteristics of wings and poles. The differences between the constallation crash and the Pentagon poles:
[A] Constallation plane crashed into wooden poles that had bases sunk into the ground [inelastic collision]. Pentagon had aluminum breakaway light poles [elastic collision].
[B] When the Constallation plane hit those wooden poles, it was flying slower than either the alleged Pentagon plane or the alleged WTC planes.
[C] Catastrophic damage happened to the both the wings and the poles. The wings had major slices most of the way through their width (ex. 0:27).
Please bear with the brief diversion at the 0:16 mark in the following video into flesh-bone-and-feather deep penetration into a wing on an aircraft, that by all appearances to me is propellor driven (probably turbo-prop) and thus with velocities less than the alleged commercial aircraft of 9/11 in their final moments.
Here's how two videos above are related.
Aluminum light poles of the break-away variety do not apply the same levels of resistive force that the buried wooden poles exhibited, so probably by design would not cause the same level of wing slicing observed in the Constellation video. On the other hand, aluminum light poles are structurally stronger than flesh-bone-and-feather birds. One would expect such aluminum poles to damage an aircraft's wings to the same or greater level as the bird, recalling also that each wing hit at least two light poles.
And as Mr. KeenanRoberts mentions repeatedly, the kinetic energy is (1/2)*m*^2. The velocity of the alleged Pentagon aircraft was greater than both the Constellation plane crashing into the ground and the propellor driven plane smacking into some fowl.
My hypothesis is that such breakaway aluminum poles hit with the alleged velocity of the Pentagon plane would have crippled the aircraft to such an extent that the fireball and breakup would have happened over the Pentagon lawn.
Consider this one point of many in the cummulative argument, and proving this hypothesis wrong doesn't destroy the next points.
Now let's bring the WTC planes into the discussion. The WTC had 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers. In other words, for every 36 cm of metal face of the square steel box section was 64 cm of window. Steel is stronger than the wooden poles of the Constellation crash.
My hypothesis from physics (and observations) suggests that the alleged WTC aircraft's wings, would have ~64 cm slices entering the towers while ~36 cm slices potentially bounced off. The aircraft's fuselage would have faired no better.
The following video from MythBusters came from an episode about a mythical car being sliced in two by a snowplow. The side-by-side images at the 0:14 mark of interest. They show a car getting creamed by a rocket and another car getting creamed at 60 mph (?) by a snowplow. View this just for reference purposes.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower [WTC-2]) and American 11 (North Tower [WTC-1]), respectively.
510 knots is about ~590 mph, while 410 knots is about 495 mph. Speeds that comparable to a related MythBuster video that uses a "wedge" on a rocket sled sent 500 mph into a car to split it in half.
The things to note from the video:
[A] The steel wedge did not disintegrate from slicing through the car and its engine.
[B] The steel wedge didn't disintegrate until it hit the concrete barrier designed to stop it.
[C] The steel wedge slowed down (consumed kinetic energy) when slicing the car. This is exhibited by the fact that the rocket sled pivots by the time the end of the car is sliced such that the sled hits the barrier before the wedge does.
Although the video has a steel wedge going 500 mph into a car, one could analyze this as a vehicle going 500 mph into a steel wedge. And thus, we see it has some applicability to vehicles and speeds of the 9/11 aircraft.
I'm going to make some simplifications here, but rest assured that when the details and complexities are inserted later, their contributions will not detract from the hypothesis.
Let's simplify that:
[A] Both WTC aircraft were 767 with a 47.6 m wingspan and 5.03 m fuselage width for both WTC-1 and WTC-2.
[B] Both aircraft hit their respective WTC towers with level wings.
[C] Both aircraft were flying at 500 mph.
[D] The impacts did not happen at or span floors; or rather, we're going to ignore the mass and strength of the concrete and steel that made up a floor.
[E] The box columns didn't have a flat face but were wedges for slicing like the MythBuster's rocket-wedge.
When the 767 traveling at 500 mph impacts the towers, it isn't one "wedge" that tries to slice the fuselage; it is at least 5 "wedges". And unlike the Constallation's wings being mostly sliced by two wooden poles, the 767's wings would be hitting 42 additional "wedges".
According to the video evidence (that I hypothesis was faked), the 767 disappeared into the towers. Rather than being sliced by the "wedges" of the exterior box columns, the lighter materials of the aircraft seemingly did the slicing of the steel box columns. Yet a wood post is demonstrated to slice a wing at even slower velocities? This seemed rather strange.
To this end, Mr. KeenanRoberts wrote April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm:
Look up Kinetic Energy. KE = 1/2 m * v^2 KE equals one half the mass times the velocity squared. Speed makes a HUGE difference in the penetrating power of one object into another. Things behave differently when accelerated to extremely high speeds. Why do you think bullets are made out of lead – the softest metal there is, even softer than aluminum? The reason is because when lead bullets are accelerated to thousands of feet per second in guns, the physics change, and suddenly those soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates.
So I looked up some details to this end.
The speed of a typical .22 LR bullet is 320 (m/s) or 720 mph.
The typical cruising speed of a modern jet airliner, e.g. an Airbus A380. is 250 (m/s) or 560 mph [and references high altitude.]
Your typical 9mm projectile moves near 1400 feet per second, which is 965.54 mph.
Video: 1 million fps Slow Motion video of bullet impacts made by Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit
Of note in the video above is something contratrary to Mr. KeenanRoberts statement: "soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates." In many cases what is observed is that the soft lead bullet splatters against the steel plate into nothingness. The hole is created by the energy transfer of the splattering bullet into the steel plate.
Remember the simple physics experiment of several steel balls hanging from strings? When the first ball is lifted and let to fall into the next one, the energy transfers through each ball until it reaches the last one that then swings away.
The bullet in many instances is like the first ball and doesn't leave the forward side of the plate; the bullet causes layer after layer of steel to break and what shoots out the backside of the hole isn't lead, but steel fragments dislodged by the energy of the bullet.
Mr. KeenanRoberts brings up the concept of a "soft" object slicing a "hard" object to imply that aluminum and sheet metal aircraft wings can slice a steel box column. The important destinctions are:
[A] Bullets have velocities (700-900 mph) much greater than the alleged 9/11 aircraft (500 mph).
[B] The surface area of the bullet is rather small and that is where the energy is consolidated to do its damage.
[C] The aircraft wing is going slower and has a larger surface area even when connecting with a single wooden pool or a single wedge or a single light pole.
Now let us return to WTC aircraft. Even if we tally up the kinetic energy of the aircraft KE = (1/2)*m*v^2 using its maximum takeoff weight m=395,000 lbs and alleged velocity of 500 mph, that energy is first applied to the slicing of not 1 but 5 (or more) 14 inch box columns when the fuselage hits. Much energy gets dissipated in the slicing of both the fuselage and the box columns before the wings begin slicing the 42 additional box columns that they touch.
Do you see where this is going?
A wooden pole can slice airplane wings at slower speeds. A single steel column (or wedge) can slice a vehicle going 500 mph in half. (See videos above.) When more wedges are added, the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle must be distributed among the wedges. The energy at each wedge gets reduced, whereby slicing effects are reduced.
At this point, let's remove many of my simplifications. In particular:
[B} Both aircraft did not hit their respective WTC towers with level wings.
[D] The impacts happen at floor levels and spanned floors, so that the mass and strength of the concrete and steel that made up a floor comes into play along with the exterior box columns.
[E] The box columns hat flat faces and were not wedges ideal for slicing like the MythBuster's rocket-wedge.
According to the pictures below, the 47.6 m wingspan of a 767 airplane wings sliced perfectly through 37 or so steel columns.
WTC-1 damage
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer/figure2-15.jpg
WTC-1 exterior schematic http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer/fig-2-16.jpg
WTC-2 damage http://911review.com/spencer/markup/spencer06_files/wtc2scar.jpg
WTC-2 exterior schematic http://911review.com/spencer/markup/spencer06_files/fig-2-27.jpg
Where is the plane? Where is the tail section? Where was the video evidence of the plane fuselages and wings being sliced by the floors and exterior box columns? How come the floors in the middle of these images didn't kick-back to the outside more pieces of the plane?
You can see the damaged floors in the middle of these alleged aircraft holes, but you cannot see any evidence of a plane.
The videos provided above of wooden poles slicing wings and rocket wedges slicing cars suggest that the towers' exterior steel box columns and floors would have been very formidable against the aircraft. And unlike the kinetic energy being applied against one or two entities to slice, it would have been distributed to 37 or so box colums and one or more floor slabs.
My hypothesis is that if actual planes were used on 9/11, the video evidence would have showed:
[A] The fuselage of the airplane being sliced and crumbled as it tried to enter the towers through floor slabs and box columns.
[B] The wings smacking against dozens of exterior box columns, but owing to kinetic energy consumed by the fuselage's deformation and deceleration, would have been broken off at some point and been bounced into the street.
[C] The tail section even on low-speed video should have had noticable deceleration. Given that it extends above the fuselage and would have impacted parts of the structure still in tact. But it is a weak part of the plane and would have the least amount of kinetic energy available to slice anything. If it didn't bounce, it would have been lodged there.
The video evidence would have showed the above, but it didn't. It didn't show any evidence. Why? Because no actual planes hit the towers, be they the alleged commercial aircraft or be they swapped super-duper planes.
I found these interesting conversations regarding the capabilities of aircraft jet engines.
Here's my layman's rewording. The engines are designed to push through (or burn) air molecules at a given rate, say x per unit measure of length. At cruising altitude, those x air molecules are further apart, so the unit measure of length is longer and thus translates into high speeds, like 500 mph. At sea level, the air is three times thicker and the molecules closer together. Therefore, those x molecules per unit measure of length is achieved in a much shorter distance and thus translates into a much slower speed at the same throttle position. If that wasn't bad enough, denser air at lower altitudes provides more drag that the engine has to push the aircraft through. To overcome the aerodynamic drag of the denser air, the engines need like 6 times more thrust.
The alleged 500 mph speeds of the alleged commercial aircraft at the WTC were impossible. If actual planes were used, they weren't what the govt said they were. (No duh!)
Inspection of the still images of the damage shows no evidence of planes. Inspection of the video image shows absolutely no crash physics that would have been expected. Even "hardened" specialized military aircraft would not have been so special to be able to slice into the towers in a physics-defying manner (no deformation, no deceleration, no visible bouncing of weaker parts).
Although I now label September Clues disinformation, it does have many nuggets of truth worth preserving. Two in particular. (1) At least three different flight paths are depicted from the various 44 views of the 2nd plane: dive bomber, level flight, and swoop up. (2) One helicopter shot has four different versions: one with no plane or anything just an explosion; one with an orb flying into the towers; one with the background masked out and a plane coming from a completely different direction; and one with the pixels of a plane replacing the orb.
Video fakery happened with what was presented on 9/11 and what made it through the military-corporate media filters to the public.
Thus, it should be no surprise that alleged aircraft flew impossible speeds at sea level, that they exhibited no crash physics, that their kinetic energy had weaker aircraft parts slicing through tower box columns and floors, that no aircraft parts were visible...
++++++
When I started earlier versions of this posting, here were some rough stats on this thread 2012-04-22 8:45 AM when there were only 338 postings:
HybridRogue1 84 (25%)
Jim Fetzer 44 (13%)
Brian Good 43 (13%)
OneSliceShort 40 (12%)
keenanroberts 18
Señor El Once 14
Now at 2012-04-24 5:53 AM we see 441 postings:
HybridRogue1 119 (27%)
Jim Fetzer 80 (18%)
Brian Good 43 (10%)
OneSliceShort 49 (11%)
keenanroberts 20
Señor El Once 15
At the time I did the stats in another thread, I [Señor El Once] had 50 postings and Mr. HybridRogue1 over 150. The only reason I bring this up, is the the discussion then and now is about the 9/11 ruse, its extent, and half of that dealt with imagery manipulation, pixels on the telly, no planes, September Clues, energy requirements, anomalous after-effects (hot-spots, vehicle damage, radiation)... This forum was tolerant to intelligent discussions into matters that "mainstream" 9/11 Truth forums side-lined. Thanks to Mr. Mckee's well-written articles, Truth & Shadows was being noticed.
The timing of Mr. HybridRogue1 entrance to Truth & Shadows, his posting frequency, the topics he tries to slam, some of the dubious resources he uses to bolster his claims...
Nothing but the best for Mr. McKee: the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group.
Señor El Once : towers were completely unoccupied
“But many others have claimed that the towers were completely unoccupied.”~onebornfree
Wait a minute – What? Where did you hear this tale that the towers were completely unoccupied?
That is one of the most outlandish things I have heard out of you Oneborner, and you have come up with some doozies.
I am just the messenger and not its champion. Don't be arguing with me about it.
Hollow towers is a theme pushed by Phil Jayhan and his Let's Roll Forums. It boils down to a thirty year ruse going back to the Rockefellers and them not having enough money to complete and flesh out one tower, let alone two. This was known in the design stage, but they really wanted the bragging rights of two buildings being the tallest in the world to demonstrate the might of capitalism. Playing into this was the fact the sudden availability of massive square footage of office space would have played major havoc on New York's real estate market.
So allegedly they purposely did not build out the infrastructure of many internal floors; whether they intended to one day flesh out and finish those floors is a different question. Consolidating the tenants to a select number of floors that were finished would save lots of money on heating and A/C, etc.
Yes, there might be an elevator lobby at each level, but between the core area and the outer walls wasn't much. Jayhan argues in cases there weren't even floors. Think of a Seattle spire with fancy things on top, but not much in the middle. Express elevators were set up to take people to the top or to two transition levels (~30 and ~60) where then local elevators would service the remaining, and even those were grouped to service something like 10 floor ranges. Those who claimed to have worked in the towers had their access to a limited set of floors, and it would take some purposely efforts to "error" and get to floors that all. Exits to stairwells are typically one-way out unless you have a key.
Also as part of this unoccupied argument is that fact that many tenants were front companies of various govt agencies. This all plays well into the simVictim theory. What floors had been occupied changed after the 1993 bombing. As tenants moved out, they pre-demolished those floors.
Of course, much of Jayhan's argumentation is aimed at knocking out themes from Dr. Wood with regards to the pulverization of content and the missing content. The piece of evidence he touts the most is a beautiful sunrise image of the towers in the late 1970's that shows sun streaming through the towers and not much of anything except the core. He calls this proof that they were empty and never finished. [I say bullocks; this is a trick of light refraction. Specifically, when he says you can't see anything horizontal on the floors, like built out cubicles and walls, the things you also can't at all due to the light refracting around the objects are any 36 cm steel columns (on 100 cm centers) of the outer wall. So his conclusions based on this image alone are daft.]
It is argued that after this artful pictures, they installed special lighted shutter systems that would prevent such photographs in the future, but also could be remote controlled to give the appearance of occupancy and to use as special effects in movies or commercials.
I'm undecided on whether or not this has merit and if so, the extent of such. Jayhan pushes this hollow towers themes to the extreme, just like his "nemesis" Mr. Shack (and OneBornFree) push their fakery topics to the extreme. In other words, he does so in a very disinfo-agent-y sort of away, and can't stand dissent. Even if the towers were mostly hollow, he doesn't argue very well using a sound understanding of science how they and the rest of the WTC were demolished. He's quick to ban people, ala Mr. Shack. [In establishing their truther legends, Mr. Jayhan creates faux flame wars with others, most notably Mr. Shack himself. simVictims is a topic they share.]
Señor El Once : willing to consider the usage of holograms on 9/11
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Because I admit to blatant tendency to being duped by whatever crosses my plate, I am willing to consider the usage of holograms on 9/11. But what will push the plunger down on duping me is evidence and properly applied science. For all of the talk of holograms, I have to date not see evidence to suggest their operational ability, let alone applicability to 9/11.
Kindly provide links to your research. [This forum supports most HTML mark-up. You should be linking to your articles elsewhere, not just blabbing their titles and expecting people to google them.]
Dr. Fetzer wrote:
Since it can't be a real plane ..., we are confronted with three alternatives: CGIs, video compositing, and the use of a hologram. Since there are witnesses who report seeing what they took to be a plane (but which cannnot be a real plane), where CGIs or video compositing would be inconsistent with seeing images of a plane other than on television, by elimination it cannot be CGIs and it also cannot be video compositing. Those of us who understand the nature of reasoning therefore soundly conclude that it was a hologram.
There are more than three alternatives, although the fourth one is sort of composite. Namely, the money quote from the following video at 0:48 "Some people said 'they thought they saw a missile.'"
A missile with wings and paint to look like an aircraft certainly could fool people at a distance to really being an aircraft. Video compositing could then be used to mask out the missile and insert pixels of an airplane.
On this front, Ace Baker [also sometimes pegged as a disinfo source] claims that masking over a portion of a real image (depicting a missile) with CGI pixels of a plane is too difficult. Maybe imagery manipulation experts Mr. HybridRogue1, Mr. Shack, and Mr. OneBornFree should weigh in.
I have to say that a missile with wings comes damn close to being a "hardened plane." However, I think enough distinctions between the two exist that I'm willing to keep missiles-in-make-up on the table for hitting the towers, but not commercial aircraft or "hardened planes." It is a minor hair-split, but such hair-splitting language is important to understanding. I admit, also, that "missiles at the WTC" technically doesn't invalidate "no planes (at the WTC)" that I would have to eat my words on (but would gladly do so with an apology will more research and understanding.)
I thank Mr. OneSliceShort for the links and videos he present on the subject of missiles.
Señor El Once : Cass Sunstein style blog infiltration had to take on a new tactic
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
My comment about timing of your entrance was more of an ego-reference to myself. Over many months, Mr. McKee and I battled and "vanquished" several disinfo agents including Albury Smith and earlier instances of Brian Good. We were sincere in our replies and their thoroughness in at least the first spin of the merry-go-round. It took us a couple or more spins sometimes to recognize the insincerity in our debate partners and their agenda.
Because I came to Truth & Shadows a "no planer" and "milli-nuclear" promoter, I regularly brought them up and defended them with science and logic (and respect). Over that same time period, my research brought me to other beliefs such as those inspired by Dr. Wood. At any rate, [*patting myself on the back*] Truth & Shadows became a relatively friendly place for "batshit crazy" theories that had evidence (needing to be addressed by whatever was the conspiracy-theory-du-jour) and rational scientific analysis. The constrast became great between my respectful postings and those of the agents who really didn't have their "shit" together or a decent grasp of science and had ad hominem as their fallback argument.
Truth & Shadows was becoming more popular. The Cass Sunstein style blog infiltration had to take on a new tactic to shoot out from underneath me the 9/11 trick ponies that I ride.
Enter into the fray you, Mr. HybridRogue1.
You write vert well. You have lots of time on your hands. Your background makes you ideal to address September Clues style issues of video fakery. [Your science is a bit weak, as proven by hot-spot duration with nano-thermite and nukes.] Even with Mr. Shack shooting at my ponies' hooves -- one that he allegedly trained --, man, I'm still riding around the arena like the duped useful idiot clown. (Not my desire.)
I mentioned that you used dubious sources, and you complain about its vagueness and being subjective. The dubious sources that I was referring to vaguely were: Eric Salter, Anthony Lawson, Frank Legge, John Bursill, etc. It isn't that none of them make valid points. You brought them into the debate as if you believe them 100% and as if they had final authority.
All of those sources had issues, not always major ones but ones that when put into play and extrapolated to conclusions reeked of "steering." "False in one, false in all", eh? Where have I heard that before? You know me better than that to bang you with that one. I'm all about ... *drum roll* ... mining the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.
It has been a challenge, Mr. HybridRogue1, to get you to go into rabbit holes to recover nuggets of truth and likewise, to acknowledge nuggets of disinformation... And as for acknowledgement of nuggets of disinformationin in your (dubious) sources? Bwhahaha!
These are signs.
Your posting frequency? It only bothers me when you've got two or more in response to the same posting. Says that your thinking wasn't clear on the matter that you would come up with another thought a half-hour later. (You should write offline and then post.)
Also, you shouldn't always be so quick to post "top-level" responses when they would be easier to read and follow closer to "the action." (Yes, sometimes a top-level response is appropriate.) Too many times, I've seen how your preference for top-level postings messes with the flow of the discussion for those reading it, sometimes in a purposely disingenuous way. In fact, the very posting that I am responding to belonged under my April 24, 2012 at 8:30 am posting.
Yeah, and mirroring your opponent? Can be fun, I admit. Save that for other forums though. If you really want to annoy your opponents and more importantly make the discussion in Truth & Shadows worthy of reading, take the high road. Takes more effort, I admit, and even I slip. But for the most part, Mr. HybridRogue1, it pays dividends.
[Dr. Fetzer. Let this be a lesson to you, as well. Too many of your postings are unbecoming to that of a university professor. They shoot your arguments in the foot and sully this forum. It is okay to write offline all the clever ad hominem witicisms against an opponent that you want and to save that to a file. But before posting, remove those sentences and save to another file.]
Señor El Once : Misdiagnosis
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 (and indirectly Dr. Fetzer, Mr. OneSliceShort later in this posting)
[BTW, should I be addressing you in some other fashion, like how you sign some of your posts? Because I practice "do unto others", I tend to stick with their aliases even though another name might be known to me, unless they tell me otherwise.]
[Off topic: you mentioned the woes you had with WordPress on your mobile device. The key is to write your response in another application. An HTML editor or Notepad are my preferences. Saving a local copy is optional. When you are ready to post, you can refresh the URL on your mobile device to make sure you have connectivity and such before then quickly clicking on an appropriate "Reply" link, copying your text from the other application, pasting it into the tiny reply window, and clicking the post button.]
You write:
Misdiagnosis — No “crumpling” shredding is the applicable term, which is exactly what happened to the plane going through facade.
The misdiagnosis belongs to your little "scientific" buddy, Mr. KeenanRoberts. My remarks were aping his, where he wrote:
The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum.
"Shredding" is the applicable term, you say. Based on the the constellation plane crash video and the rocket wedge video, shredding is indeed what I would have expected.
Whereas it could be argued that the UA175 video resolutions and destructive actions inside the tower prevented us from seeing shredding, the rocket wedge video demonstrates properties of physics that are missing from the 9/11 UA175 video "evidence." Namely, shredding (or slicing) is an energy sink that over the length of a small car noticeably slowed the wedge (in a high speed video). The UA175 airplane was longer than the car; the fuselage alone was impacting 5 or more box columns instead of a single wedge; milli-seconds later the wings were impacting 30 or more; and the 36 cm faces of the box columns were not configured as neat cutting wedges. These four factors suggest a place where lots of kinetic energy was consumed and would have measureably slowed the tail section from its thin-air velocity.
You replied:
The bullet through the steel sign. As you point out the bullet disintegrates, but nevertheless blows a hole through the sign. Well in the plane crash the plane disintegrates as well. Admittedly this is not the simple vaporization as with the bullet, but the plane does fragment.
First of all, the video of bullets going through steel was steel that was thicker than the bullet-sans-casing itself. It was not a "steel sign" with its hints of being thin sheet metal.
Secondly, when the videos of (1) the car flattened by rockets, (2) the Sandia F4 jet crash ["the plane atomized with the impact"], and (3) the Rocket sleds at Sandia are viewed and applied to UA175, one could argue as you seem to that the 36 cm wide box columns on 100 cm centers would have "atomized" the lighter mostly aluminum aircraft. Only it didn't, at least not according to the video "evidence." The splattering debris from the comparative examples in those videos was not evident to a significant degree for either alleged WTC aircraft.
[Mr. OneSliceShort does point out that debris can be seen failing.] I speculate that most of it comes from the building, like the aluminum cladding that covered the steel box columns. My present opinion is that none of the 9/11 impact videos seem to have the energetic, atomized, "splattering debris" similar to the Sandia F4 or Mythbuster rockets-against-vehicles.
Mr. OneSliceShort's excellent postings gave examples of bunker busting missiles that penetrate and then explode, which more accurately describes both alleged WTC aircraft.
You make the comment:
Your ball bearings on strings analogy is perfect for a multi-car pile-up, but very little to do with the plane impact.
You missed the point. The steel balls on strings analogy referred to what was happening with the bullet and how a hole in steel gets created: not necessarily by the bullet physically piercing the steel but by the bullet transferring its energy into the steel.
In another posting you write:
[I]t takes extraordinary arguments to make the claims that real planes could not perform the simple task of flying into a building.
Go back and re-read both my posting and many from Mr. OneSliceShort, and in particular follow links and watch videos. The conversations about jet engine thrust at high versus low altitude and about the controlability of aircraft at the alleged speed. I think these qualify as "extraordinary arguments" regarding the alleged planes with their alleged pilots not being able to fly into buildings to the precision observed.
At this point, I have to admit that Mr. OneSliceShort has me scratching my head with his posting of this video, Last 12 seconds of the alleged flight UA175. [Kudos and great work, Mr. OneSliceShort!]
On the one hand, this video invalidates my NPT claim that various videos of UA175 seemed to have different flight paths. [In reality, I got that claim from September Clues for which this deals a serious blow.]
On the other hand, I still have some wild-ass NPT speculation to lamely explain away this crippling analysis. Only one shot of the UA175 alleged impact was quasi-live: 17 seconds delayed, according to Mr. Shack. The rest of the 45 or so videos of UA175 were released throughout the course of the day, week, and month (and some even later than that). Maybe the very 3D modeling tool (or similar) that shows how the various videos really did have consistent flight paths was used during the process of inserting plane pixels in various collected 9/11 footage to assure that at least this part of the ruse remained consistent. Modeling consistent flight paths would certainly be easier to do than modeling crash physics.
On the third hand, Dr. Fetzer has been pretty insistent about holograms. I've looked (briefly) into what is commercially available and into some videos of research success. Granted, when the military wants to keep big technology for itself, sometimes offshoot small technology is slow in making it into public university research and commercial products. What I have run across so far still has presented holograms in their infancy incapable of pulling off 9/11.
Here's what I understand about holograms based on what is published about today's technolgy [which were things I pretty much knew before]:
[W]hen you look at a developed piece of film used to make a hologram, you don't see anything that looks like the original scene. Instead, you might see a dark frame of film or a random pattern of lines and swirls. Turning this frame of film into an image requires the right illumination. In a transmission hologram, monochromatic light shines through the hologram to make an image. In a reflection hologram, monochromatic or white light reflects off of the surface of the hologram to make an image. Your eyes and brain interpret the light shining through or reflecting off of the hologram as a representation of a three-dimensional object.
1) Most holograms require a flat piece of holographic film. The Touchable Hologram uses a concave mirror. The virtual ticket agent is rear-projected onto a human shaped silhouette made of plexiglass.
2) "Most holograms also act like color filters, so you see the object as the same color as the laser used in its creation rather than its natural color."
3) "You need the right light source to see a hologram because it records the light's phase and amplitude like a code. Rather than recording a simple pattern of reflected light from a scene, it records the interference between the reference beam and the object beam. It does this as a pattern of tiny interference fringes. Each fringe can be smaller than one wavelength of the light used to create them. Decoding these interference fringes requires a key -- that key is the right kind of light."
Dr. Fetzer sent me the links that I could bore into to find the above. Now if Dr. Fetzer can link me to where these above limitations have been overcome, maybe I could be endorsing 9/11 airplane holograms in my regular batshit crazy fashion.
As near as I can wild-ass speculate, maybe a configuration similar to a long-range radio telescope: a large parabolic mirror with holographic film on its surface that different color lasers shine into and get reflected out to the parabolic mirror's fulcrum point that is designed to be several miles away. Due to the limitations on the fulcrum length, a land-based parabolic hologram projector would have the hologram only going in circles.
*Assuming* my wild-ass speculation about parabolic holograph mirrors being able to project from lasers a hologram some distance has any scientific merit, then a parabolic hologram projector on a (WACS?) aircraft flying a parallel course but much higher altitude (where those pesky 500 mph speeds are possible) might just fool people and cameras on the ground. Lasers can be used to trigger nano-thermite... Presto!!! The cartoon outline of a plane that the WTC resident artists made with nano-thermite gets blasted into the tower's face.
Holograms would explain the need for HAARP control of Hurricane Erin: hurricanes suck clouds, as opined by Mr. Shack. Hurricane gives predictable wind directions for smoke. If smoke or clouds were to get in the way of the projected hologram, it might result in the wings of an aircraft disappearing and being caught on film.
The only conclusion that readers should make of this wild-ass speculation into holograms is: "There goes Sr. El Once again!!! Trying to become a duped useful idiot on the latest conspiracy technology to cross his plate!"
Sorry about that, chief!
I'm not duped yet. There is still room for rational discussion to dupe me for or against this.
James Fetzer : public sources are grossly outdated
April 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm
The public sources you are relying upon are grossly outdated in relation to what technology is available. Did you listen to my two-hour interview with Stephen Brown on “The Real Deal”? I think I even gave you a link. He had just taken a course on holography at Cambridge, (Perhaps you have heard of it?) He assured me that the technology that would have been required to project the image of a Boeing 767 such as what we see in the South Tower hit videos was available in 2001.
The plane is performing feats no real plane could perform
the situation requires no more than applications of d = r x t. Since there is no deceleration at all–the plane continues at constant velocity passing its whole length into the building–this massive 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance than air.
the plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which is impossible, unless a massive 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air.
But if it was done using CGIs or by video compositing, the only images of planes anyone would have seen would have been IN THESE VIDEOS AFTER THEY WERE BROADCAST. Obviously, witnesses would not have reported having seen non-existent planes (unless they were suffering from false memory syndrome or for other unknown reasons reporting having seen “planes” as having been present before broadcast.
Given p or q or r (CGIs or video compositing or a hologram), we know from the witness reports that it cannot be CGIs and it cannot be video compositing, as long as we believe the testimony of any of those rather numerous witnesses, where I have interviewed on at length, Scott Forbes. If any of them is telling the truth–and I certainly believe that some of them, including Scott Forbes, were telling the truth–then the first two alternatives can be eliminated and we are left with the last alternative, a sophisticated hologram. Others can believe what they will, but as long as Stephen Brown and Scott Forbes are telling the truth, we have the only rational explanation for the data. I will take a look at OSS video clip, but I can’t imagine how it could defeat this line of argument.
Those windows were small and narrow, which covered less than 50% of the facade of the building.
the greater the weight we give to the witness reports, the greater the weight of the evidence supporting the hologram hypothesis BECAUSE we know it cannot be a real plane and the only question that remains is how the fake plane was introduced into the footage. If it was using CGIs or video compositing, then it would not have been visible to the witnesses in real time but only after the fact when those images, which had not been present, were broadcast on TV.
Señor El Once : piling on Dr. Fetzer
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
I know you'll perceive this personally as piling on, Dr. Fetzer. From my perspective, you are defending NPT and holograms very poorly; you are not objectively considering the counter points and seeing where your angling to discover truth -- as we all supposedly are -- must be modified accordingly; and you are quickest of all both to take comments personally when they should simply be ignored and to shovel it out in greater measure. The latter is conduct unbecoming of both a university professor and a Marine Corps Officer.
Let me begin by addressing your April 25, 2012 at 6:58 pm posting:
The public sources you are relying upon [about holograms] are grossly outdated in relation to what technology is available.
You were the one who provided the kernal links. Now you're saying they are outdated? I followed those links and even two or three levels of links presented therein. I googled the matter, and came up with more up-to-date (2011) articles. I even put in "military holograms", and the best information has to do with holographic battle field maps.
No links that you provided (or that I could find) substantiate being able to project holograms a distance. The best I've been able to find is my own damn wild-ass speculation on parabolic mirrors with holographic images, and that doesn't count for squat.
Did you listen to my two-hour interview with Stephen Brown on “The Real Deal”?
Did you provide a link to it? No. It is your own radio show. Such information should be readily at your finger tips.
[Stephen Brown] had just taken a course on holography at Cambridge. He assured me that the technology that would have been required to project the image of a Boeing 767 such as what we see in the South Tower hit videos was available in 2001.
Just taken a course on holography? So what? I took a graduate level EE course in lasers and recently took another in power electronics. If you aren't interviewing the professor, if you (and Mr. Brown) aren't referencing the literature and research, if there is nothing in the public domain to demonstrate it, then such verbal assurances don't carry much weight.
If Mr. Brown is going to be your subject matter expert on holograms, then you put the onus on him. [Invite him to this thread to contribute.] Otherwise, Dr. Fetzer, you're just being duped. [Don't feel so bad and welcome to the club. I'm a duped useful idiot on many things, and am no longer such on other things when the science didn't pan out.]
In other postings you write:
The plane is performing feats no real plane could perform. ... The situation requires no more than applications of d = r x t. Since there is no deceleration at all–the plane continues at constant velocity passing its whole length into the building–this massive 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance than air. ... [T]he plane passing through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air, which is impossible, unless a massive 500,000 ton building poses no more resistance to the trajectory of an aircraft than air.
I was in this camp, Dr. Fetzer, but I'm changing my tune.
I've been objectively reviewing and considering lots of videos (some posted here) of Sandia crashing. I've even been considering the arguments of Mr. Keenan Roberts.
If you were to do the same, it would dawn on you that the situation does require more than the application of d = r x t when the already large velocities get squared to amp up the energies at play in decimating the alleged commercial aircraft.
You write:
But if it was done using CGIs or by video compositing, the only images of planes anyone would have seen would have been IN THESE VIDEOS AFTER THEY WERE BROADCAST. Obviously, witnesses would not have reported having seen non-existent planes (unless they were suffering from false memory syndrome or for other unknown reasons reporting having seen “planes” as having been present before broadcast.
In this is actually a key point that all participants should be able to acknowledge: the active role of the media in the ruse, a nugget of truth from September Clues that no one has ever debunked. Behold, how quickly "experts" were talking on-the-air to steer public perceptions: "it wasn't a controlled demolition"; "it has the finger prints of Osama bin Laden"; "oh, the tragic loss of life today".
I do not trust a single-solitary witness to the 1st plane who was given airtime on 9/11. As far as I know, every single one of them was in one form or another "in the hip pocket" of the corporate media. They were introduced as producers or other job titles whose employment (or that of a spouse) was for the network. Another nugget of truth from September Clues (that they may have clombed onto from others) is the inability of such witnesses to have seen what they claimed from their alleged location.
The 2nd plane had pixels on the telly in some cases while network employees were still blabbing about the alleged 1st plane. At this point, the anchors in the studio saw these pixels and began correcting the reporters on the street who had interviewed witnesses who said "they saw what looked like a missile."
Once those pixels of the 2nd plane began to air -- over and over and over --, you couldn't go into a public place without a television interrupting their normal programming with updates on the plane; you couldn't listen to the radio without talk of the planes. Eye-witnesses to whatever-they-actually-saw had their perceptions tampered with as soon as they were in the presence of this media saturation.
Who on this planet has the nuggets to put their eye-witness observations in conflict with the massive weight of media saturation? Cognitive dissonance: all would have assumed that their observations were in error and would go along with the induced general public perception. Similar to basketball and the gorilla psychology experiment, I recall another groupthink experiment (whose links I can't find) where 6 (or so) participants were asked in sequence to answer a question like "which line is longer?" However, only 1 participant was really the test subject; all others were part of the control and would sometimes purposely give false answers in agreement with the other five. The purpose was to see the influence of groupthink on the test subject: would they be strong enough to hold to their (correct) perceptions, or would they buckle and go along with the group?
Dr. Fetzer wrote:
Given p or q or r (CGIs or video compositing or a hologram), we know from the witness reports that it cannot be CGIs and it cannot be video compositing, as long as we believe the testimony of any of those rather numerous witnesses, where I have interviewed on at length, Scott Forbes. If any of them is telling the truth–and I certainly believe that some of them, including Scott Forbes, were telling the truth–then the first two alternatives can be eliminated and we are left with the last alternative, a sophisticated hologram. Others can believe what they will, but as long as Stephen Brown and Scott Forbes are telling the truth, we have the only rational explanation for the data.
You put a lot of trust behind Scott Forbes and Stephen Brown. I haven't heard them. And even if I had, good liars are the most convincing, even more so that those who always tell the truth. Therefore, P or Q cannot be eliminated on your say-so alone.
Keenan Roberts : straw man arguments
keenanroberts says:
April 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Well, Señor El Once, since you mentioned me in your above post (and in a derogatory tone) I might as well respond. You said:
The misdiagnosis [crumpling] belongs to your little “scientific” buddy, Mr. KeenanRoberts. My remarks were aping his, where he wrote:
The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum.
Señor El Once, enclosing ‘scientific’ in quotes when describing me as if to imply that I’m anything but scientific, when coming from someone (yourself) who has shown virtually no scientific aptitude at all (and even you yourself practically admitted as much in various postings), while continuing to make claims of a “scientific” nature in attempting to support your silly speculative NPT and video fakery theories, is too hilarious to even comment on.
What I will comment on is your use of a straw man argument, claiming that my use of the descriptive “crumpling” while discussing a separate issue (deceleration on impact), means that I excluded the possibility of “shredding” as one of the effects of the impact, and therefore I “misdiagnosed” the effect. This false dilemma is of your own creation, not mine. That you would assume that I would not have possibly included both crumpling and shredding (along with other effects) as likely in the collision, is strange to me, but is an absolutely false assumption on your part.
I would also like to address my loss of patience with you I expressed in my comment of April 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm where I basically dismissed your very long winded comment that just preceded mine as being drivel and accused you of behaving just like all the other NPT type folks who troll and spam. What set me off was some derogatory remarks and baseless accusations and assumptions, along with some faulty scientific and technical arguments you made, such as in the following examples (bolding mine):
The deeper I got into it, though, the more I realized what games he [keenan] was playing to keep real airplanes and real videos in consideration at the WTC.
Brief summary: Mr. KeenanRoberts dismisses measuring the physics from the imagery of the plane impacts because they aren’t high-speed enough to measure small changes in, say, the tail section’s velocity. He argues the tail section could continue with its momentum unaffected by the front of the fuselage smacking into the box columns of the outer structure because of fuselage crumpling. [false statement. I never said that the tail section's momentum would be "unaffected"] Yet where is that evidence of crumpling happening?…
OSS has already addressed your claim of no evidence of collision effects on the videos with the discussion of the fact that “The length of the fuselage from the nose to the wings is 60ft. The aircraft’s recorded speed would cover that 60ft distance in less than a tenth of a second” and that therefore the videos naturally were not able to capture much of what was going on in such a short interval, which made it look like the plane just melted into the building.
Another example:
Of note in the video above is something contratrary to Mr. KeenanRoberts statement: “soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates.” In many cases what is observed is that the soft lead bullet splatters against the steel plate into nothingness. The hole is created by the energy transfer of the splattering bullet into the steel plate.
Remember the simple physics experiment of several steel balls hanging from strings? When the first ball is lifted and let to fall into the next one, the energy transfers through each ball until it reaches the last one that then swings away.
The bullet in many instances is like the first ball and doesn’t leave the forward side of the plate; the bullet causes layer after layer of steel to break and what shoots out the backside of the hole isn’t lead, but steel fragments dislodged by the energy of the bullet.
First of all, you are setting up another straw man argument and putting words in my mouth. I never said that the planes penetrated the towers and then came out the other side intact. Nor did I say that a bullet going through a steel plate made it out the other side intact when making a hole through it. So let me spell it out to you. In high speed collisions, even when one object is able to penetrate into another object, does not in any way exclude the possibility that the penetrating object is destroyed in the process. And there are in fact examples of where a softer object penetrates all the way through a harder target at high enough velocities and high enough Kinetic Energy, specifically under the condition that the sectional density (the mass divided by the frontal area) of the penetrating object is higher than the sectional density of the target.
If you are going to set up straw man arguments and put words in my mouth in an attempt to make me look like I am “playing games” and such, the more likely outcome is that you are showing people that you can’t debate honestly.
A final example:
The timing of Mr. HybridRogue1 entrance to Truth & Shadows, his posting frequency, the topics he tries to slam, some of the dubious resources he uses to bolster his claims…
Nothing but the best for Mr. McKee: the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group.
Absolutely uncalled for assertions that HybridRogue’s timing of entering discussions here are suspicious, and what appeared to me to be an incredibly outrageous accusation that the people arguing against your NPT/Video Fakery crap on this thread (including myself) are “the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group”
==================
keenanroberts says:
Do you think there should be rules or standards for honest debate? When a person consistently misframes and misstates other's arguments and questions, consistently evades and dodges, consistently utilizes straw man arguments and other fallacies, and consistently refuses to concede when their arguments have been disproved or shown to be without merit, should this be tolerated indefinitely?
==================================
keenanroberts says:
April 25, 2012 at 9:11 pm
One final point, Señor El Once,
You belittle my claim that “The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum” as if it is ridiculous (and without giving any scientific reason why I am wrong, you just seem to ridicule).
Notice that I did not say that the forward momentum of the tail was “unaffected”, as you misquoted me before on this, but what I mean was that the deceleration could be imperceptible to the human eye.
Well, there a perfect test of the claim with the Sandia F4 crash test, which HybridRogue mentioned above. The reason it is a perfect test of this principal (of imperceptible deceleration) is because the target that the F4 crashed into was a very thick solid reinforced concrete wall that the F4 was not able to penetrate at all, unlike the WTC crash. Also, the velocity of the F4 before impact was 480 MPH, similar to the alleged speeds of the planes crashing into the WTC. So, if there is any significant deceleration expected from a high speed plane crash, we should at least have seen it in the Sandia F4 test to disprove my statement above. If the Sandia test shows no perceptible deceleration, then that should be proof enough that my statement above regarding the WTC crash stands, and you should concede that point.
The results of the test were mentioned in the paper published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration
During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion,
and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity
By Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf
Gregory Jenkins concludes:
An analysis of a crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet aircraft showed no appreciable deceleration of the tail end during impact with a massive concrete slab demonstrating that little deceleration is expected from the tail end of a Boeing-767 during impact with a WTC tower.
So, Señor El Once, after following the link and examining the evidence for yourself, I would like you to concede this argument.
==================================
keenanroberts says:
April 26, 2012 at 3:30 am
Don’t play dumb, Fetzer. You know exactly what this “imperceptible deceleration” is referring to, your bullshit analogies and straw man arguments aside. Are you even capable of even ONE honest response?
If you are having trouble with Gregory Jenkins conclusion that:
An analysis of a crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet aircraft showed no appreciable deceleration of the tail end during impact with a massive concrete slab demonstrating that little deceleration is expected from the tail end of a Boeing-767 during impact with a WTC tower.
then try reading the paper to understand the context and look over the evidence for yourself. It is all there for you to read if you are willing. Here, I’ll give you the link again –>http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf
The statement above appears on page 2 of the document. Go to page 3 for the Appendix: Analysis of F-4 Phantom Jet Impact Velocity where you can examine the evidence for yourself.
Now, Fetzer, what part of this F4 impact velocity study, specifically measured at the tail in which no appreciable deceleration of the tail was observed for the first 80% of the plane’s impact (up to the point in time when the tail was obscured by debris), do you not understand?
Any response of yours that attempts to evade and shift the subject and does not specifically address the above point will be ignored and recorded as further evidence of your lack of willingness to debate honestly (and believe me, I’m not holding my breath for an honest response from you).
Señor El Once : too hilarious to even comment on
Dear Mr. Roberts wrote:
Señor El Once, enclosing ‘scientific’ in quotes when describing me as if to imply that I’m anything but scientific, when coming from someone (yourself) who has shown virtually no scientific aptitude at all (and even you yourself practically admitted as much in various postings), while continuing to make claims of a “scientific” nature in attempting to support your silly speculative NPT and video fakery theories, is too hilarious to even comment on.
Yet you made a comment anyway. Too hilarious.
My apologies, Mr. Roberts, because the "scientific" word in my "your little 'scientific' buddy" phrase was really a dig at Mr. HybridRogue, whose (his term) "boojie woojie science" is rusty. It is as if he had to ask his superiors for re-enforcements, and presto! Mr. Roberts as Mr. HybridRogue's Gilligan enters the fray in this thread.
Jumping to the end of your posting, you write:
Absolutely uncalled for assertions that HybridRogue’s timing of entering discussions here are suspicious, and what appeared to me to be an incredibly outrageous accusation that the people arguing against your NPT/Video Fakery crap on this thread (including myself) are “the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group”
Point #1. My significantly longer tenure in this forum gives me a different perspective on the actions of others with regards to the timing of their arrival... including yours.
Point #2. Glad that you recognize yourself as belonging to the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group so I don't have to accuse you of such.
The rest of this posting will not be going over new scientific evidence or revealing anything new in the discovery of 9/11 Truth. It will just be a highlighting of game playing. It will be of little interest to anyone except Mr. Roberts whose own words shoots himself in the foot several times. Let's start with this quote:
What I will comment on is your use of a straw man argument, claiming that my use of the descriptive “crumpling” while discussing a separate issue (deceleration on impact), means that I excluded the possibility of “shredding” as one of the effects of the impact, and therefore I “misdiagnosed” the effect. This false dilemma is of your own creation, not mine.
Oh, how limited your ability to follow discussions and how weak your ability to Ctrl+F and locate your own words:
It is not sufficient to just look at the tail section to determine the rate of deceleration of the entire plane, because the tail section would continue on its forward momentum even as the front of the plane was already crumpling and ceasing its forward momentum.
As to who should be blamed for creating a false dilemma of misdiagnosis, please don't foist it on me. Look no further than yourself (above) and Mr. HybridRogue on April 24, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Misdiagnosis — No “crumpling” shredding is the applicable term, which is exactly what happened to the plane going through facade.
In my brief summary (which never claims to be an exact quotation), I wrote:
Brief summary: Mr. KeenanRoberts dismisses measuring the physics from the imagery of the plane impacts because they aren’t high-speed enough to measure small changes in, say, the tail section’s velocity. He argues the tail section could continue with its momentum unaffected by the front of the fuselage smacking into the box columns of the outer structure because of fuselage crumpling.
Mr. Roberts takes issue: False statement. I never said that the tail section's momentum would be "unaffected".
Please point out where I got the wrong impression from your own words:
The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum.
This next passage is absolutely awesome. Not only does it attempt to pin a strawman on me, but deftly introduces two strawmen (I've labeled [A] and [B}) of his own:
First of all, you are setting up another straw man argument and putting words in my mouth. [A] I never said that the planes penetrated the towers and then came out the other side intact. [B] Nor did I say that a bullet going through a steel plate made it out the other side intact when making a hole through it.
Let's dispense with [B] first. Here are Mr. Roberts own words (emphasis mine) regarding bullets going intact through steel plates:
Things behave differently when accelerated to extremely high speeds. Why do you think bullets are made out of lead – the softest metal there is, even softer than aluminum? The reason is because when lead bullets are accelerated to thousands of feet per second in guns, the physics change, and suddenly those soft lead bullets are able to go through steel plates.
Let's return to [A]. He claims he never said that "planes penetrated the towers and then came out the other side intact." I neither wrote that nor wrote that Mr. Roberts wrote that. This diddy of a strawman is made all the more humorous when we think about the meaning of what he is saying with planes coming out the other side of the building in tact. [Before Mr. Roberts comes back with "I never said 'other side of the building'", let's point out he never said "other side of exterior wall or other side of box columns" either.]
Mr. Roberts' strawman is all about losing context [that my posting here puts the icing on]. The context that I was trying to establish started with bullets that Mr. Roberts brought up. Bullets apply their energy to one side of steel plate, often get splattered, and many times never really progress beyond that side of the plate. Their energy, on the other hand, transfers into the plate, breaks steel bonds, and sends a fragments of steel out the other side. The analogy I used involved the physics experiment with suspended steel balls and how energy of the first ball transfers through the other balls and sends the last ball flying.
Mr. Roberts chose not to see what I was driving at: A fuselage and (milliseconds later) wings splatter (like a bullet) against one side of steel box beams, transfer their energy into the beams, and presto! outline of fuselage and wings gets cut into those steel beams on the building face. [Only problem was: we don't see sufficient Sandia F4 (bullet) splatter; we don't see shredding either; we don't see the plane in the hole; nothing of the plane was found in the decimated towers' debris piles.]
Mr. Roberts writes:
If you are going to set up straw man arguments and put words in my mouth in an attempt to make me look like I am “playing games” and such, the more likely outcome is that you are showing people that you can’t debate honestly.
The above proves you are playing games.
Speaking of which, you should be careful about what you wish for:
Do you think there should be rules or standards for honest debate? When a person consistently misframes and misstates other's arguments and questions, consistently evades and dodges, consistently utilizes straw man arguments and other fallacies, and consistently refuses to concede when their arguments have been disproved or shown to be without merit, should this be tolerated indefinitely?
On into Mr. Roberts' April 25, 2012 at 9:11 pm "final point" continuation:
You belittle my claim that “The tail of the aircraft could still be traveling close to its original (thin air) forward momentum even while the front of the aircraft was already crumpling and stopped in its forward momentum” as if it is ridiculous (and without giving any scientific reason why I am wrong, you just seem to ridicule).
Notice that I did not say that the forward momentum of the tail was “unaffected”, as you misquoted me before on this, but what I mean was that the deceleration could be imperceptible to the human eye.
Point #1: I didn't misquote you, because you weren't being quoted. I was summarizing your blathering argument at the time to the best of my understanding as already explained above.
Point #2: "Deceleration could be imperceptible to the human eye?" What a weasel-worded hair split! Nothing about alleged 500 mph speeds are perceptible to the human eyes. It is all about the medium that captured it. Your original posting was making half-way decent arguments regarding the lack of high speed videos. You can almost (but not quite) make the case that the frame rate of the videos we do have was insufficient to detect the deceleration.
You write:
Well, there a perfect test of the claim with the Sandia F4 crash test, which HybridRogue mentioned above. The reason it is a perfect test of this principal (of imperceptible deceleration) is because the target that the F4 crashed into was a very thick solid reinforced concrete wall that the F4 was not able to penetrate at all, unlike the WTC crash. Also, the velocity of the F4 before impact was 480 MPH, similar to the alleged speeds of the planes crashing into the WTC. So, if there is any significant deceleration expected from a high speed plane crash, we should at least have seen it in the Sandia F4 test to disprove my statement above. If the Sandia test shows no perceptible deceleration, then that should be proof enough that my statement above regarding the WTC crash stands, and you should concede that point.
You obviously missed it in your haste to build your strawmen, but I linked that Sandia F4 crash already at least twice in my postings.
Touche, though. That video and other high velocity crash videos have me indeed reconsidering my views. Assuming the UA175 video is valid.
Yep, in case you haven't noticed, my recent postings are reflecting renewed confusion in my beliefs about 9/11 events.
Few of us can agree on NPT (the no planes theory). But where we should be finding agreement is on NCPT (the no commerical planes theory), that has these supporting pillars:
(1) The alleged commercial planes could not have flown the velocities attributed to them by video evidence and by radar data that exceed both the structural and engine thrust capacities.
(2) The alleged hijacker pilots could not have manually steered the planes so precisely into their targets. Remote control by computer is about it.
(3) The alleged FDR surviving the horrific impacts and scredding as well as the decimation of the towers by excessively energic means are questionable. (Which FDR don't show the cockpit door ever being breeched?)
(4) Lots of data points [neatly outlined by Dr. Fetzer on April 25, 2012 at 11:32 pm] regarding flights not being scheduled, flights being elsewhere at impact times, and aircraft not being de-registered.
Señor El Once : Let's play some more of that game
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Let's play some more of that game. All quotes below are from you unless otherwise identified:
All this blathering on and on,
Agreed, blathering on and on it was. Thank you for reading it.
continuing to split hairs with my words,
Serves you right if you aren't going to write precisely. What's the matter? Don't you stand by your own words? Don't like how I torched all of your strawmen arguments?
continuing to create straw man arguments,
Completely and entirely unsubstantiation right from the word "continuing". I proved that nothing I wrote previously was a strawman (while proving that antics were exactly that in which you decry.) And you offer no proof that anything in the last post was a strawman either.
A trait of a disinformationalist is to caste their own weaknesses and issues onto their opponents.
Just about every time you call out "Strawman!", you're worse than the boy crying "Wolf!" when there was no wolf. In fact, you reek of being "the wolf in sheep's clothing" who cries "Wolf!" "Wolf!" "Wolf!" against others, so that eventually the lurker readers will go away, and your agenda of "devouring truth" (e.g., preventing it from being aired and discussed rationally) will be fulfilled.
continuing to deny your troublesome tactics I identified,
Pot calling the kettle black, eh?
It turns out, the "troublesome tactics" were misidentified as belonging to me. I validated where your very own words gave me justification. That troublesome shoe fits you, hombre.
continuing to misinterpret and misstate my arguments (“close to” is not the same as “unaffected”,
Who's hair splitting now?
I call BS on your attempt to claim that summarizing my argument as if I was claiming the tail end velocity was “unaffected” by the impact of the front of the plane was an accurate summary, etc.).
Can't you even quote yourself accurately? What happened to the word "crumpling", which was the hair-split that caused your little nitpicking flame-bait posting?
I don’t have time to address all of the rest of your blather. I don’t have anymore time for your game playing. I’m quite done with this pointless exercise. ... Don’t expect me to spend the time to respond to your lengthy billowing blasts of hot air point by point from this point forward. I have much more important (and interesting) things to do with my time.
I'm going to hold you to this. A promise is a promise, eh? If you deviate from doing that which you repeatedly state you are going to do, I will rub your nose in it ruthlessly.
Señor El Once : picture of honesty and moral rectitude
Mr. Roberts lamented to me:
Perhaps you take yourself just a little too seriously?
Perhaps Mr. Roberts doesn't take himself seriously enough. Below are quotations data-mined from Mr. Keenan Roberts' postings just to me. Were I to venture beyond that into the 40 or so other postings in this thread, the picture of honesty and moral rectitude created by Mr. Roberts does not change significantly.
Mr. Roberts already says: "So flattering how you take such interest in my every word and action here (not)."
More flattery, I suppose.
April 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm
- I do not wish to have an in-depth discussion or debate on NPT at this time.
- I’ve become thoroughly exhausted with the subject after having to deal with the same debunked crap for the last 6 years on various online discussion forums.
- I’m really not interested in spending any more time debating NPT.
- That’s all I’m going to say on the matter at this point.
- You now appear to me to be of the same trolling and spamming breed as all the others...
- I basically dismissed your very long winded comment ... as being drivel
- [I] accused you of behaving just like all the other NPT type folks who troll and spam.
- I don’t have time to address all of the rest of your blather.
- I don’t have anymore time for your game playing.
- I’m quite done with this pointless exercise.
- Don’t expect me to spend the time to respond to your lengthy billowing blasts of hot air point by point from this point forward.
- I have much more important (and interesting) things to do with my time.
- You are seeming more and more like a 15 year old brat living in your parent’s basement with nothing much to do other than spend your days tolling blog discussions.
- Ok, dude. Knock yourself out.
With Mr. Roberts own permission.
Referring to the two April 26 postings from 4:35 pm and 7:38: What do you call a person who gives their word on a matter and then a skant three hours and three minutes later demonstrates that he doesn't have the ability to stand by it?
What do you call a participant who deliberately and repeatedly engages those he deems a troll in direct opposition to the cardinal rule of how best to handle trolls (e.g., ignore)?
Were we to look more closely at the body of Mr. Roberts work in this forum in light of the trend line connecting the answers to those two questions, they cluster around that trend line. Just in responding to my postings alone, Mr. Roberts wrote things like:
"Not True."
"This has not been proven."
"False."
"False."
"I will comment on is your use of a straw man argument."
"This false dilemma is of your own creation, not mine."
"[Y]ou ... set up straw man arguments and put words in my mouth in an attempt to make me look like I am 'playing games'"
My rebuttals turned these around. When the focus is broadened to Mr. Roberts' exchanges with others (particularly his calls for banishment of others and quarantining topics of discussion), data points are easily collected that cluster around the trend line already established with me.
Houston, we have a problem.
The A-Team of the NSA Q-Group.
Señor El Once : is audience grasping the material presented
Dear Mr. Tamberine Man wrote with regards to Dr. Fetzer:
If you would look back on all the previous posts, it will astound you how many times he had to repeat himself, saying the same things over and over and over again. No notice was ever taken by the so-called ‘opponents’ to what he was actually saying, and hence the continuous repetitions.
On the surface, all good public speakers know to register whether or not their audience is grasping the material presented. Repeating the same thing over and over with little variation in wording (except for the creative comments about the instructor's perceptions of others' intellectual aptitudes) might get a marine grunt to do another chin-up but does not get good end-of-the-semester student evaluations.
Going deeper than the surface, the unvarying repetition in question starts to reflect poorly on the professor's grasp of the information, as if he were aping one of his students in having memorized material without truly understanding the concepts that would otherwise allow it to be expressed in another fashion. More importantly, when the concept is truly understood, one knows also how to guage applicability when other factors are added.
Here is the crux of the issue. Vehicles are designed for their application space, and part of the design is selection of materials. The application space defines velocities and loads both in carrying capacity and resulting from movement, such a g-forces. This in turn defines what energies the vehicle's materials must withstand. The typical application space for commercial and military aircraft includes safe take-off and landings, and probably does not include smashing into concrete barriers or steel buildings at high velocities.
The Sandia test facility videos as well as Mythbusters impresses upon me how utterly weak & feeble the materials of normal vehicles are and how quickly they spectacularly fail when the energies of high velocities [K.E.=(1/2)m(v^2)] are applied.
I can concede the point that the tail of the alleged UA175 aircraft would not necessarily slow when it impacted into the towers.
Anomalies remaining on the table that lack explanations:
- Why did the alleged UA175 aircraft not exhibit more "splatter" (ala Sandia F4 and Mythbuster) and "slicing" (ala Mythbuster)?
- How in the hell did the alleged aircraft achieve its velocity? [Aircraft wasn't UA175?]
- How would it have possible to so smoothly navigate into the targets at those velocities? [Aircraft not under human control?]
- Why do certain videos blatantly show anomalous effects, like missing wings?
Dr. Fetzer has not made a solid case for holograms. Period. I researched holograms at various times over the years and came up then with the same zippo results that I did just a few days ago. Holograms (today) are not operational enough to have pulled off 9/11 ten years ago.
Dr. Fetzer and I have something in common: we were both duped by pods-on-planes a few years ago. (In fact, Dr. Fetzer may have been its major champion at the time that got me convinced of this.)
Here's a bat-shit crazy theory that I had before and now return for ya'all to chew on. Instead of pods-on-planes, I call it planes-on-pods. Here are the data points:
- Before run-down by anchors in the studio, a reporter said that "witnesses thought they saw a missile."
- Missiles can have wings and to most people -- particularly when massively re-enforced by the media -- could somewhat resemble a plane. Even the infamous Bob and Bri video [that has crafty editing and doesn't show the 2nd plane] had Bri exclaim "it's a small military plane."
- Missiles can fly high speeds at low elevations; missiles fly very accurately by computer; missiles can fly into buildings and explode on the inside.
- Missiles would not exhibit crash physics.
- September Clues goes to lots of effort to first cast doubt on 9/11 imagery and then to shoot itself in the foot so that even I start calling it disinfo. Disinfo tactic: become an authority and own a subject, and if you can't steer it, then do something to purposely discredit yourself and thereby the subject.
- Ace Baker [someone with his own disinfo reputation] adamently claimed [off-list in an email to me] how difficult it would be to put pixels of something moving over the images of something moving. I've learned that the harder the attempts to wave off something -- nothing to see here folks --, the more likely it is a flag to wave on, land on, & investigate further.
- September Clues does capture lots of video anomalies, like even the infamous nose-in/nose-out that when run up against Mr. OneSliceShort's postings of delay-burst-bunker-buster videos makes more sense.
- http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1220/vlcsnap74651ez4.png
- http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7281/vlcsnap81689yt4.png
My hypothesis is that crafty video editing overlaid pixels of a commercial plane on top of imagery that would otherwise have captured something looking more like a missile-with-wings. What was formerly identified as the pod-on-plane might really be remnants of the missile pod on which the pixels of the plane try to cover.
Señor El Once : word count for the active participants
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
The actual word count for the active participants is for you to perform. Until we see some hard figures, you're just guessing.
And as you try to re-frame the statistical analysis, here is what those efforts cover over.
- My less frequent but wordy postings are much easier to IGNORE and skip over. [I'm sure you found that beneficial.]
- My less frequent but wordy postings involved probably more thought and analysis. [Sometimes I go through two or three drafts before posting once. My "break" last weekend until my monolithic posting on Tuesday involved such drafts and contemplative thinking while mowing the yard and preparing the garden that led to improved drafts.]
- Your multiple postings in response to the same posting indicate that your thought and analysis were incomplete on the first posting. [Writing off-line helps greatly with this failing.]
- Your frequent postings often involve "shoot from the hip" responses that incite flame-wars (whether or not intentionally).
- You and I had little interaction in this thread, which the posting count more accurately reflects than word count.
- The posting count, as opposed to word count, indicates who was more active and with whom, and therefore shows who was dominating the forum and potentially steering it (e.g., belittling snide remarks to concepts, flame-bait, etc.). [This is a general statement coming from my experience with such analysis in other forums, and those negative examples are NOT an accurate reflection on your activities here.]
Señor El Once : argument for a hologram is not that complicated or detailed enough to be believed
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
The whole point of the discussion in this thread was that there was NOT crash physics evident in terms of splattering or shredding or bouncing of parts. What was observed was pieces of the building (like aluminum cladding) falling off. We know mechanisms were planted in the towers to cause their destruction, so it isn't so far fetch to believe mechanisms were planted and timed to explode at or about the time of a computer controlled missile impact to help create the outline of an aircraft. Let's Roll Forums makes a lot of hay with regards to the resident (foreign) WTC artists [but for other purposes].
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Your are absolutely correct when you wrote:
My argument for a hologram is not that complicated.
It also isn't detailed enough to be believed.
Where are (the links to) research papers that explain how holographic images can be projected some distance? Where are the real world proof-of-concept examples that demonstrate this?
Everything I have found suggest stark limitations involving holographic film, concave mirrors, or plexiglass that have the hologram, in front of which is projected the holographic image with respect to the observer. [Please excuse my detour into the ridiculous...] These would imply that the holographic plate, concave mirror, or plexiglass was suspended by wires from a high flying aircraft.
Since it was not a real plane but looked like a real plane, it had to be something that looked like a real plane but was not real. ... As long as some of the witnesses are telling the truth, whatever it was that looked like a real plane but was not a real plane had to be visible BEFORE it entered the South Tower.
No argument there. Take a closer look at these missiles.
- http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1220/vlcsnap74651ez4.png
- http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7281/vlcsnap81689yt4.png
When in flight, they would have wings. Relatively speaking, a real & large commercial aircraft farther away would appear the same to observers as a real & smaller made-up-to-look-like-commercial-aircraft missile closer.
As the mythbusters and Sandia videos demonstrate, when the footage of an object traveling ~500 mph is shown in real-time, human eyes can have difficulty in capturing details. It is just too damn fast. They have to slow it down.
But CGIs and video compositing do not allow that.
Not true. CGI and video manipulation would tweak the captured image before being aired to the public. [Only one image was aired almost live with a 17 second delay, which is a lot time for computer cycles. All other footage had more time available for CGI to cover over a flying missile with pixels of a plane.]
The only hypothesis that fits all the data points appears to be a hologram.
As given above, holograms is not the only hypothesis. The links to my images above as well as a part or two of September Clues gives my hypothesis at this point more weight. Come up with something more than talk (or talk radio) on the hypothesis of holograms being able to fulfill the ruse of 9/11 WTC planes, and I'll be happy to change my tune.
Señor El Once : Fezter's NPT
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
Consider me in agreement with "Fezter's NPT" where these flights are defined by the govt with regards to aircraft model, airline, flight manifest, and associated stories (e.g., cellphone calls, heroic passengers, boxcutters):
(1) Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower;
(2) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon;
(3) Flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville;
(4) Flight 175 did not hit the South Tower.
Consider me also in agreement my Mr. Rogue's Bernayzion caution regarding being boxed into prefab Happy Meal PR thought constructs. Case in point, Dr. Fetzer wrote earlier a summary of my position:
Senor El Once has already suggested that it could be a combination of simulated planes and tweaking the videos before they were broadcast...
It is repeated here:
We know... that simulations or fabricated videos or both of Flights 11 and 175 were used in New York...
Instead of "simulated planes," I prefer the phrase "cruise missiles mocked up to look like commercial aircraft." This data point aligns with eye witnesses seeing something. Repetition on the telly throughout the day would bend the feeble memories of eye witnesses to that of the pixels of the commercial aircraft.
Although I've read reports about the military exercises of 9/11 involved insertion and deletion of radar blips, a cruise missile at high enough altitude ought to have enough a radar blip.
Reminds of a "Mission Impossible" episode from the original series. [Hazy recollection] At the very end of some escapade, the people being duping saw some to-be-assassinated character board a helicopter with whirling blades. The people go to the other side of a building. Then they see a same-colored helicopter fly off seemingly in the distance where it explodes horrorifically. In reality, the exploding helicopter was a scaled-down model and, owing to its small size, was closer and easier for the clever Jim Phelps crew to launch while saving the character.
Here's a few nugget of truth that just came back to my attention.
- Lasers are one of many triggers for nano-thermite.
- Many different videos capture a bright flash on the face of the respective tower in a frame or two before the nose of the rendered aircraft enters.
- The WTC had these resident artists, foreigners working on strange things. (Let's Roll Forums gives all sorts of speculation into what they were doing or what their purpose was.) They did build a contrapation that would extend out the window of the building and act as a platform. (One art project supposedly involved a helicopter taking photos of lots of individuals who would step out naked onto the platform.) At any rate, such a platform would also give them access to the aluminum clad building face. Thus, my hypothesis was that this would be an opportunity to insert/paint their explosive nano-thermite cartoon outlines of a plane on th tower's face.
- A laser on the cruise missile could flash milli-seconds before impact to start the nano-thermite outline ignition.
- A laser mounted on some other building could both direct the cruise missile to its target as well as ignite the nano-thermite when the cruise missile got close.
- The laser flash would also serve as a synch-pop to help align all versions of the video when inserting pixel versions of a commercial plane to mask the missile.
I recognize that a real plane could also be outfitted with such a laser like a pod underneath, such that its laser would ignite the nano-thermite in time for its fuselage and wings to plow through it. I view this as less likely than a cruise missile, because the angle of the wings of a real plane would be harder to get aligned with the artists' nano-thermite work. A cruise missile only has to be on target with the center.
P.S. To Mr. Rogue, I hope to get some work done this week, so maybe you should deal me out of your game.
To Mr. Roberts, please be a dear and make your detailed argument about NPT with the assistance of extraterrestrial technology and mentioned in your posting of April 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm. Don't shy away from extrapolating to the energies needed to pulverize the tower. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Señor El Once : Triple bonus points for those who acknowledge nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's textbook
Triple bonus points for those objective thinkers who acknowledge nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's textbook. The prerequisite for this endeavor is having access to her textbook and cracking it open to read it. (And thus, Mr. HybridRogue doesn't qualify to make knowledgeable comments, and Mr. Roberts probably doesn't either.)
Dr. Wood's textbook is a worthy addition to any non-troll's 9/11 library even when and if it is determined that a chapter or two are disinformation.
Each chapter pretty much stands on its own. Few conclusions are drawn, and very little connecting of chapters is presented. This is both its strength and weakness.
My humble opinion on this subject is presented in the discussion under When did they know?....
Before Mr. Roberts goes too far into the Dr. Wood's subject in this thread, he should (a) familiarize himself with that thread and (b) probably take this discussion there.
Señor El Once : holographic media needs to be there as a backdrop or surface
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
To view a traditional movie, you have a projector through which film runs, light sent through the film, and a surface some distance away on which the image is displayed. The observer is typically at a distance from the surface, either in front of or behind the projector.
Much of holography turns this around. There doesn't have to be a projector; assume the observer is in the same location; the surface where the image is to be displayed (possibly with the illusion of the depicted image being in front of the surface) is holographic film, holographic concave mirror, etc. The positioning is: observer, perceived holographic image, and holographic medium.
The point is that the holographic media needs to be there as a backdrop or surface. This is a major limitation.
I saw a cool off-shoot of this. It has a mirror angled at 45 degrees that is spun at about 20 Hertz. Computer controlled laser light is directed from above into the mirror. The observer's view angle is perpendicular to the laser. Makes a pretty cool rendering.
Dr. Fetzer writes:
I am now more open-minded about the possible use of a cruise missile which could have been cloaked with a hologram than before.
I would like to be open-minded about this as well, but I have yet to find anything to suggest that a hologram could be projected out into the air (like a Bat-Signal) without something -- a surface, a mirror, a cloud, a smoke trail -- for it to be rendered on. Hurricane Erin sucked away the clouds and sucked the smoke a certain direction. For all of the different angles and distances that we have for the captured image of the aircraft, the smoke trail could not have been used and achieved correlated images.
You have regularly pointed me to your interview with Stephen Brown on August 27, 2010 to support your belief that holograms. The MP3 always seemed to crap out at a point between the 1/3 and 1/2 mark when the discussion was about lasers and masers. The almost half that I listened to was about exotic weapons. If there was anything about holograms in that interview, it was in the second half that I can't get to.
What else do you have to support holograms usage on 9/11?
Research into holograms is fascinating.
The only problem: nothing I'm discovering suggests that holograms now (or on 9/11) could be projected, much less cloak a cruise missile with wings.
Señor El Once : long time since taking anything you have to say as worthy of consideration
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
Your April 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm posting belonged under Mr. Roberts April 30, 2012 at 5:23 am posting and not as a top-level thread item.
Although this is a point of annoyance for me, it does reflect on a certain level a purposely misusing of the REPLY mechanisms on your part. This is one data point in addition to the data point of what the rough stats show for the 751 comments (at time of writing):
hybridrogue1 says: 227 ± 5 (30%)
Jim Fetzer says: 166 ± 5 (22%)
Craig McKee says: 67 ± 3 (8.9%)
OneSliceShort says: 64 ± 3 (8.5%)
keenanroberts says: 47 ± 3 (6%)
onebornfree says: 43 (5.7%)
Señor El Once says: 30 (4%)
[The counting errors were introduced by me, because I was using the phrase "hybridrogue1 says:" (for example) in my Ctrl+F searching, and these sometimes appeared within other people's postings that I didn't always spot.]
A further data point is when your write:
[I]t has been a long time now since I have taken anything you have to say as worthy of consideration.
How easy you get tripped up. I guess the following list represents examples of you not taking any of the ~30 postings that I wrote as being worthy of consideration. I love how the date stamps reflects how dreadfully long that has been.
- April 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm
- April 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm
- April 24, 2012 at 9:43 pm
- April 26, 2012 at 12:06 am
- April 27, 2012 at 9:19 pm
- April 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm
- April 27, 2012 at 10:44 pm
- April 28, 2012 at 5:54 pm
- April 29, 2012 at 2:43 am
- April 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm
I wrote:
Triple bonus points for those objective thinkers who acknowledge nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood’s textbook. The prerequisite for this endeavor is having access to her textbook and cracking it open to read it. (And thus, Mr. HybridRogue doesn’t qualify to make knowledgeable comments, and Mr. Roberts probably doesn’t either.)
The reason I mentioned your name is to cut you off at the pass with regards to any expert opinion you might render with regards to Dr. Wood's textbook: you don't have it, ain't gonna get it, and ain't gonna read it for no nuggets of truth neither.
Which is most curious when you yourself wrote on April 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm:
I do not agree with any of the sources I cite 100%.
Putting those into my venacular, you've been cherry-picking and data mining for nuggets of truth those information sources that you don't agree with 100%, yet you repeatedly to this day fail the same test of your objectivity on the Dr. Wood front. What a hypocrite!
For the record, Dr. Wood has very little in her textbook that your or I will be able to find fault with... Until Mr. Shack & crew steps up to the plate and definitively identifies the tainted imagery that made it into her tome and duped her analysis. She doesn't even make direct statements or conclusions. Where we'll find fault is in the inference that certain science or technology were applicable to 9/11. [For example, I think her dismissal of hot-spots is based on faulty govt information; I think that neither Hutchison Effects nor Tesla free-energy were involved; and I think that the destruction of each building needs to be considered individually, because space-beams do not apply to the towers, but could potentially apply to the cylindrical bore holes in WTC-5 or the crater in WTC-6.]
Ah yes, but the agenda of your little buddy is laid out, and you felt compelled to write not one, but two dismissive postings within 40 minutes (one at a top-level, no less). Could you be even more transparent? And this on top of the ring-around-the-rosey debate you had with Dr. Fetzer for the majority of your ~227 postings (so far).
You wrote:
The material available on the web from her own site, and critiques by other physicists of her work is sufficient in my opinion; to dismiss her as a serious scientist.
Evidence, my dear agent friend. Evidence. Her textbook and website are teaming with evidence that few even attempt addressing in their weak theories, like the butchered sacred cow of super duper nano-thermite. More so than any conclusions or argumentation she makes (or that you think she makes), the evidence is there and needs to be addressed.
You can stick with your premise:
I do not agree with any of the sources I cite 100%.
But objectively, Dr. Wood's textbook needs the same opportunity to come up with a percentage, no matter how small, that you do agree with. Nuggets of truth. Nuggets of truth.
Keenan Roberts : flame bait
2012-04-30
keenanroberts says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Señor, some observations:
1) Your response completely evaded and ignored the subject matter and questions of my post
2) You chose to immediately subject shift into a discussion of Dr. Wood’s textbook, which requires that anybody participating in such discussion possess a copy of said textbook, and then noted that this disqualifies Mr. HybridRogue and probably myself from “make\ing knowledgeable comments”
3) It is not very reasonable to assert that a book that (even you admit) has already been found to be discredited and containing disinformation would be “a worthy addition to any non-troll’s 9/11 library”,
4) You seem to have a peculiar need to search for “nuggets of truth” from non-credible sources, which, to most people is a quite a pointless exercise and is the mark of someone with jumbled thinking.
5) It’s kind of hilarious that you are the one attempting to initiate this subject shift into discussion of Judy Wood’s textbook, and then warn me that before I take this discussion too far into this subject, I should probably take this discussion to a different thread.
6) Please don’t take this comment as an invitation to start another round-and-round chasing your tale with word games and trivial pursuits that nobody cares about but yourself, as I will not be following you on the chase.
7) If, on the other hand, you would like to respond to the original subject matter of my post the questions I posed, which were, “can anybody spot the methodological similarities between Dr. Fetzer and Dr. wood?” and “Who can list all of the logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood typically employ?”, then I will gladly continue the discussion with you.
Señor El Once : the pledge and torching strawmen
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Whatever happened to your pledge:
- I don’t have time to address all of the rest of your blather.
- I don’t have anymore time for your game playing.
- I’m quite done with this pointless exercise.
- Don’t expect me to spend the time to respond to your lengthy billowing blasts of hot air point by point from this point forward.
- I have much more important (and interesting) things to do with my time.
This is like the third time you've proven the value of your word, and it ain't much. And now, let's play the game of torching your strawmen.
1) Your response completely evaded and ignored the subject matter and questions of my post
No, it did not. Your last sentence was giving out bonus points for logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood employ. My first sentence was giving out triple those bonus points for acknowledging nuggets of truth in Dr. Wood's textbook.
2) You chose to immediately subject shift into a discussion of Dr. Wood’s textbook, which requires that anybody participating in such discussion possess a copy of said textbook, and then noted that this disqualifies Mr. HybridRogue and probably myself from “make\ing knowledgeable comments”
You were the one bringing up Dr. Wood and supposedly the logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that she employs. Well, gee, if that were the case, it ought to evident in the most recent and up-to-date publication from Dr. Wood (that I am aware of), namely, her textbook.
Yes, of course, I have been and am making it a requirement that participants possess a copy of her textbook before giving their book reviews, because I deplore to no end book reports made from the high & mighty lofty position of never having cracked it open. Seems only objective and fair to make this requirement. And you can expect that I will thump you over the head with my copy of her textbook until you do.
Tell you what, though. If you can find a Cliff Notes version of her textbook that gives the good, bad, and ugly by chapter (and assuming it agrees with what your opinion would be of her textbook if you would have read it), then you can reference that. If it doesn't go chapter-by-chapter and doesn't give ugly, bad, and good, you can imagine the thumping I'll continue to give you.
3) It is not very reasonable to assert that a book that (even you admit) has already been found to be discredited and containing disinformation would be “a worthy addition to any non-troll’s 9/11 library”,
I admit to no such thing! It hasn't been discredited, not in the least, and I've given many reasons why: it stems from the crafty way in which it was written.
My premise is that ALL information about 9/11 is disinformation. Let that sink in. There isn't a single source of information on 9/11 that hasn't been bent by some form of disinformation, even those things that we all take for granted, like the validity of 9/11 imagery and the wonderous powers of super duper nano-thermite.
Ergo, all sources of 9/11 information must be mined for nuggets of truth.
Because you have been proven a troll whose word can't be trusted (just in your interactions with me alone), then you will not find Dr. Wood's textbook a worthy addition to your 9/11 library.
4) You seem to have a peculiar need to search for “nuggets of truth” from non-credible sources, which, to most people is a quite a pointless exercise and is the mark of someone with jumbled thinking.
See my answer to #3 with regards to the voracity of ANY source of 9/11 information. Ain't a single one that doesn't have errors or can be relied upon 100%. Thus, you're already trained to look for nuggets of truth. The issue might be that as you go into sources that someone has told you (not necessarily you discovering for yourself) was non-credible on certain points, those nuggets of truth might be spaced further apart with disinformation nuggets.
5) It’s kind of hilarious that you are the one attempting to initiate this subject shift into discussion of Judy Wood’s textbook, and then warn me that before I take this discussion too far into this subject, I should probably take this discussion to a different thread.
Mr. HybridRogue has given you the same advice, and he's the skipper to your Gilligan, right?
Should you have something noteworthy to bring up about Dr. Wood on this other thread and it is response to something I posted, I'll make that the exception to my promise of holding you to your promise of not engaging me, okay?
6) Please don’t take this comment as an invitation to start another round-and-round chasing your tale with word games and trivial pursuits that nobody cares about but yourself, as I will not be following you on the chase.
Let me take a moment to repeat the choice sentence: I (Mr. Roberts) will not be following you on the chase.
Please be a man of your word and don't so quickly give me examples of your own dishonesty to thump you over the head.
7) If, on the other hand, you would like to respond to the original subject matter of my post the questions I posed, which were, “can anybody spot the methodological similarities between Dr. Fetzer and Dr. wood?” and “Who can list all of the logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood typically employ?”, then I will gladly continue the discussion with you.
As was already proven, my posting was on subject. If you're going to hold up Dr. Wood's work to find the bad and ugly logical fallacies and un-scientific methods, then you are required to get her most applicable work, namely her textbook. [It is not the same as her website.] Otherwise, I'll ask you to remove your wallet because it muffles your voice.
Seven strawmen set up by Mr. Roberts; seven strawmen torched.
Señor El Once : discredits your honesty
Dear Mr. Roberts,
You demonstrate for all to see where your head is. And it is not in honest debate. Otherwise, you would not have made the 2:28 pm statement that your 6:08 pm posting completely discredits your honesty on:
I will not be following you on the chase.
These promises you frequently make of not having time for me and my pointless exercises and of having more important (and interesting) things to do with your time? How I wish that they were true, that you would stand by your words, and that you would ignore me so that I wouldn't point them out [along with copious errors in your analysis and attributions to me] as reflections of your character.
Your attempt at framing the discussion is another indication of your honesty:
[Find] all of the logical fallacies and un-scientific methods that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood typically employ.
The source material for Dr. Wood is her textbook. You don't have it. If you order it today, you might get it by the weekend or next week.
Until you have it, you are ill-prepared to make any sort of comparison between Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Wood.
If your framing of the discussion at "logical fallacies and un-scientific methods" wasn't already a clue as to your dishonesty and agency agenda, then your choice of the ambush Dr. Jenkins interview with Dr. Wood seals the deal. Not everyone is as photogenic and articulate as young Dr. Jenkins, particularly late at night when the ambush interview happened. I suggest you research the back-story of that interview.
If you were being objective, fair, and honest (which you aren't), you would acquire Dr. Wood's textbook and see that it is significantly better than any interview she has ever given and her website, which has been under construction since 2006. [Kind of like your blog that has had no postings in almost a year, and seemingly has no original verbiage from you. What's the matter? Don't you ever write anything that is worthy of you preserving it?]
If you were being objective, fair, and honest (which you prove you aren't), you would be eager to explore various sources of information for nuggets of truth. Your challenge to the forum would be instead:
[Find] all of the nuggets of truth that both Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood have buried in their work. Find the evidence that isn't being addressed and lend thought to its true meaning within the big picture.
Let's re-purpose your very words with different punctuation:
[Dispense] with all the rest of your pointless and ridiculous blather. Are you even capable of such honest debate?
Señor El Once : revealing of your character
2012-05-01
Dear Mr. Roberts,
Thank you ever so much for your two postings to my one. They are so revealing of your character. For example, you write on April 30, 2012 at 11:37 pm with my emphasis:
I really could care less what you do. Just don’t expect me to ever take you seriously ever again since you seem to enjoy copying Judy Wood’s and Jim Fetzer’s tactics of endless time wasting, round and round evasion and tail chasing.
And then without even waiting for me to reply, on May 1, 2012 at 6:50 am you post how much you could care!!! And it is all so special! I just loved these gems from your two examples of "endless time wasting, round and round evasion, and tail chasing:"
- You are ... very dishonest
- Your reading comprehension ability is seriously impaired
- Go back and read my original post, perhaps 3 or 4 more times
- Why is it so hard for you to get things correct?
- You obviously have been taking lessons from Jim Fetzer
- How about giving an honest response
- You ... make such ridiculous excuses
- [Are you] genuinely so utterly obtuse and imperceptive?
- [Are you] just really good at pretending [being utterly obtuse and imperceptive]?
- learn Basic Reading Comprehension Skills
- Get a hobby if you can’t figure out what to do with your time
- Perhaps you are getting paid for all the pointless blathering you’ve been pumping out here
You wouldn't by chance be baiting me into a flame war,Mr. Roberts? Almost (but not quite) every posting you've made to me in this discussion has this flavor. Please don't cast your weaknesses on to me.
Oh, that I were "paid for all the pointless blathering!"
$$$ Ca-ching $$$ Ca-ching $$$
Reminds me of Wally in Dilbert when the pointy-haired boss said they were going to pay bonuses for all the bugs found in their company software. Wally then says to Dilbert, "I'm going to go program myself a mini-van!"
Evidentally you missed my April 30, 2012 at 3:15 pm posting that gave some thread stats. I'm not going to "blather myself a mini-van" at my present rate. The Skipper and Gilligan seem to have different incentive plans represented by how exhuberently they paddle their canoes. The dark forces of Cass Sunstein runs strong.
Why are you conflating Dr. Wood with Dr. Fetzer?
Why are you limiting the analysis of Dr. Wood to the Dr. Jenkin's video?
Why are you so focused on "logical fallacies and un-scientific methods?"
Why are you so adverse to finding nuggets of truth buried in the work of (what other's label) disinformation?
Agent Roberts, the above is how you try to define home-court, and it tilts. Negatively.
But Truth & Shadows isn't your home-court. The game won't be played by your rules. You foolishly write:
Don’t expect me to ever take you seriously ever again.
You do so at the peril of your participation here.
The Skipper to your Gilligan has called me "slippery." Right below this very posting he counsels you:
Take Senor’s advice and review the “When did they know” thread.
Keep in mind that he gives his Dr. Wood book report without the distinction of having opened its cover.
Not to give the wrong impression: You'll find plenty of caveats from me regarding the merits of Dr. Wood's textbook in the linked thread.
Meanwhile, Dr. Wood's textbook is elevated into a symbol for objectivity. It is test. And all prognosis regarding its content delivered without the benefit of having cracked it open, fails.
Señor El Once : You had me until you got to #6
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
You had me until you got to #6:
Does anyone here not understand that, if we are not observing Flight 175
in any of these videos, then we are dealing with some form of video fakery?
Yes, I do not understand.
If we are not observing Flight 175 (as defined by the govt with respect to aircraft model, passenger list, etc.), it does not by necessity follow that we are dealing with some form of video fakery. If we are not observing Flight 175, we could be observing some other aircraft or we could be observing some form of fakery.
Starting with that one illogical statement, your posting goes down hill from there. I abandon your soapbox derby.
Let me state it simply. From everything you have presented on holograms and from everything that I (and Mr. OneSliceShort) have researched on our own, holograms today (and in 2001) are incapable of producing the fakery needed to pull off 9/11.
I reserve the right for science, technology, evidence, and appropriate analysis to dupe me in favor of holograms on 9/11. But for now, all four have been woefully lacking -- by you, Dr. Fetzer. It is irresponsible of you to keep harping on holograms without substantiation. [QuickTime repeatedly crashes about half way through your interview with Stephen Brown, so I haven't had the pleasure of hearing how his one class in holography at the prestigious Cambridge elevates holography to such an operational state in 2001 to pull of 9/11.]
Changing belief systems is painful. I see the pillars of my NPT beliefs crumbling, and I don't want to admit it.
When it comes right down to it, the fact that all of the four flights are proven not to be what the government said is enough. The velocities of the aircraft as measured by (tainted?) video and radar is glaring, as is the precision with which they hit their targets. They could not have been the alleged flights under the hands of the alleged terrorists. This is damning enough.
In my opinion, the nugget of truth that shouldn't be discarded from September Clues [the largest perpetuator of NPT] is the active hand of the whore media in the ruse and in the run-up to wars.
Señor El Once : troublesome word "video"
Dear Dr. Fetzer,
You asked how you could lose me at #6, which was:
Does anyone here not understand that, if we are not observing Flight 175 in any of these videos, then we are dealing with some form of video fakery?
I took the liberty of highlighting the troublesome word "video" being used as an adjective to modify "fakery." Had you simply left this adjective out and used only the word "fakery," I would not have had any issues... until I got to #7, that is.
If you can boast about all of your years teaching logic and critical thinking, I can boast about many years intimimately working with technical English. If your posting would have had your new definition of "video fakery" that you claim to be "a substitute plane or a simulated plane as well as by altering video tape using CGIs or video compositing," maybe I would have given you a pass... until I got to #7, that is.
I apologize for not having followed closely or ridden a pogo-horse on the many spins of the merry-go-round when you might have brought forth your new definition of "video fakery." I can assure you, that had I been along for those up-and-down pogo rides, I would have barfed all over that definition just like other in this forum are legitimately complaining about your re-definition of the "no planes theory" (NPT).
You do not have the authority to simply co-opt a word or phrase ("video" or "no planes") that has established meanings in the English language. The manner in which you have done this, well... To repeat your own words:
This troubles me, because it shakes my faith in your integrity and intellect.
Yep. It would have been quite easy to manipulate the English language by removing or adding adjectives to get your meaning across. Instead, you think you have the authority to re-define meanings? Come on!
For example, here is something I wrote at the bottom of another posting in this thread that would have served you well had you read it:
Few of us can agree on NPT (the no planes theory). But where we should be finding agreement is on NCPT (the no commerical planes theory), that has these supporting pillars:
(1) The alleged commercial planes could not have flown the velocities attributed to them by video evidence and by radar data that exceed both the structural and engine thrust capacities.
(2) The alleged hijacker pilots could not have manually steered the planes so precisely into their targets. Remote control by computer is about it.
(3) The alleged FDR surviving the horrific impacts and scredding as well as the decimation of the towers by excessively energic means are questionable. (Which FDR don’t show the cockpit door ever being breeched?)
(4) Lots of data points neatly outlined by Dr. Fetzer on April 25, 2012 at 11:32 pm:
- BTS data records show that Flight 11 was not even scheduled that day.
- BTS data records show that Flight 77 was not even scheduled that day.
- Pilots4T has shown Flight 93 was over Urbana, IL, when it was allegedly crashing in Shanksville.
- Pilots4T has shown Flight 175 was over Pittsburgh, when it was allegedly entering the South Tower
- FAA Registration records show the planes associated with Flight 93 and Flight 175 were not even de-registered until 28 September 2005.
See how easy that was? By simply adding the adjective "commerical" to NPT gives you NCPT that few people will have issue with.
So, let's assume that you had ditched the "video" adjective in favor of "[...]" in #6 and #7 to become:
(6) Does anyone here not understand that, if we are not observing Flight 175
in any of these videos, then we are dealing with some form of [...] fakery?
(7) Does anyone here not understand that there appear to be three ways in
which [...] fakery could occur: CGIs, video compositing, and a hologram?
To answer the revised #7, I answer: "Yes, I do not understand."
Fakery can have many forms. (Something this ardant "no planer" is begrungingly coming to realize is that) the very real possibility exists that the WTC planes could have been specialized military aircraft that could fly those excessive velocities at sea level with precision under computer control. You don't list this, even though it fits as a "simulated plane."
Worse, there is that pesky word in #7 that re-appears in #9 & #10: "holograms." Rhetorical questions: Ever had anything published in a professional journal? Ever wrote or read a PhD dissertation?
Seems to me that you know what the standards are for research, references, siting sources, and proving a hypothesis. Yet this is lacking when we ask for such and which would substantiate your promoting and selling of "holograms." To repeat your own words again:
This troubles me, because it shakes my faith in your integrity and intellect.
You wrote:
There is no reason to offer the bizarre rejection you advance in this instance, because there is no legitimate reason to do that.
The rejection isn't bizarre, the reasons are clearly given, and they are legitimate. This more than anything is why you wrote:
This is a most disappointing post.
Yes, consider it karma for any time you, as a PhD dissertation advisor, ever kicked back a student's submission and made them try again.
Señor El Once : fitting cap to this thread of ~865 postings
"Me thinkest thou doth protest too much."
This series of postings from the A-Team of the NSA Q-Group -- Mr. HybridRogue, Mr. Keenan Roberts, and Miss TheFacts -- is a fitting cap to this thread of ~865 postings (so far). All of them are top-level postings; all of them are not in response to anything; nearly all of them are flame-bait.
TheFacts : May 2, 2012 at 12:03 pm
hybridrogue1 : May 2, 2012 at 1:23 pm
hybridrogue1 : May 2, 2012 at 1:53 pm
hybridrogue1 : May 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm
keenanroberts : May 2, 2012 at 4:32 pm
hybridrogue1 : May 2, 2012 at 5:28 pm
TheFacts : May 2, 2012 at 5:42 pm
hybridrogue1 : May 2, 2012 at 8:15 pm
hybridrogue1 : May 2, 2012 at 10:57 pm
Mr. Roberts wrote:
From this point on, I’m not even going to bother reading any more of your verbal flatulence here or anywhere else.
It is embarrassing to point out that forum is written and not verbal. But setting this aside, let us hope that Mr. Roberts doesn't stop at not bothering to read but also not bothering to respond.
Miss TheFacts wrote a promise that I hope she, too, will try to honor better than Mr. Roberts:
I will no longer waste my time going round and round.
I loved Mr. HybridRogue's final posts to this thread (so far). I've extracted several comments from his postings that should be considered OUT OF CONTEXT and re-directed back at the writer. Mr. HybridRogue wrote:
Why all this bluster? ... Your attempt to spin the wheel here yet one more time with nothing but hot air is revealing enough in itself. ... Some of us learn from our mistakes – some of us don’t. ... [S]how some sort of grace whether leaving or staying. ... I am delighted with your volunteering to come here and put on your show. ... But seriously my man, is there no one near to pull you back from the window ledge as you stretch for that imaginary balloon? ... You seem not to grasp the storm raging around your reputation. ... And this goes round’n’round like a bloody carousel. ... I have learned a lot from the experience here: one is that that wise cracks too often backfire.
I'm too lazy and short on time to count the stats on this thread now at ~865 postings. I'm sure the trend from when the postings were at 751 haven't changed much:
hybridrogue1: 30%
Jim Fetzer: 22%
Craig McKee: 8.9%
OneSliceShort: 8.5%
keenanroberts: 6%
Señor El Once: 4%
"By their fruits ye will know them."
Señor El Once : concede the point and will no longer be advocating NPT
2012-05-03
As the resident Truth & Shadows champion of NPT (no planes theory), I now concede the point and will no longer be advocating it. My heartfelt apologies to this forum and to any participants whom I may have skewered with my NPT rhetoric.
Mr. OneSliceShort's excellent postings on Pilots For 9/11 Truth refute with evidence, science, and proper analysis everything that had duped me the last 4 years or so into believing the NPT.
My belief was primarily based on the work of September Clues. I recognized going into it and throughout my tenure in championing it that some crafty disinformation was at play, only (a) the counter-arguments to NPT were weak, non-convincing, and mostly ad hominem bluster and (b) I was needing assistance in spotting those disinformation nuggets, what with video techniques not being my forte. My direct interactions with Mr. Shack and his clues forum were easier to take apart as not being truthful of the big picture, thereby further raising my hackles that I was being duped by NPT.
This being said, September Clues should not be taken off the table. Why?
First and foremost, it needs to be held up as an excellent example of purposeful disinformation. It wasn't cheap. A lot of money and effort were spent in making it, promoting it, and maintaining the September Clues website. It was very crafty.
Secondly and probably more importantly, nuggets of truth remain in September Clues that need to be mined, refined, and re-purposed. At the moment, I lack the time to view all episodes 1-9 and A-H again for this purpose. My comments are based on what I can recall.
A particularly glaring nugget of truth was the active role of the corporate media in the 9/11 ruse from the onset. Control of the media is a military objective, and this was evident by the amount of footage sharing between the networks. After-the-fact is one thing, but they were doing it with live shots that were cut in. They were actively framing the shock-and-awe.
Another nugget was the extremely large banners that they put under images to obscure what viewers would see (or record). And after all this time, the media hasn't been releasing source footage without such obnoxious banners.
Manipulation of imagery did happen. To what extent? I don't know. But to sweep September Clues off the table prematurely without a proper analysis of both technical nits as well as overarching concepts plays into the hands of disinformation. [In fact, Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree stilted and obtuse methods of arguing "all was fake; false in one, false in all" instead of more rational and defendable arguments of "some was fake" could be viewed as crafty plays to get objective readers to dismiss seriously considering the whole genre and thereby dismiss nuggets of truth that might not otherwise be recognized and known.]
Meanwhile, parallels between September Clues and Dr. Wood's textbook (the remaining hobby-horse I ride) exist, although that pony is lame in one hoof and I know it. Before it gets put down, nuggets of truth must be preserved.
++++++
For those curious, the stats for ~865 were:
hybridrogue1: ~273 (31.5%)
Jim Fetzer: ~176 (20%)
Craig McKee: ~84 (9.7%)
OneSliceShort: ~79 (9.1%)
keenanroberts: ~58 (6.7%)
Señor El Once: ~39 (4.5%)
TheFacts says: 15 (1.7%)
When considering what got me to change my tune, it was none of Mr. HybridRogue's 31.5%, Dr. Fetzer's 20%, or Mr. Roberts 6.7%. Credit goes to Mr. OneSliceShorts modest 9.1%.
Señor El Once : that a new topic is free to begin
Mr. McKee wrote (with my approximate update on the numbers):
The comment thread on my previous article, a piece on Richard Gage, has now reached 865 comments, most of them on No Planes. Believe me, I’m ready for a new topic.
As the resident Truth & Shadows champion of NPT (no planes theory), I now concede the point and will no longer be advocating it.
My heartfelt apologies to this forum and to any participants whom I may have skewered with my NPT rhetoric.
Mr. OneSliceShort's excellent postings on Pilots For 9/11 Truth refute with evidence, science, and proper analysis everything that had duped me the last 4 years or so into believing the NPT.
I post this concession on NPT here (as well as the other thread) as a final termination point so that a new topic is free to begin.
Señor El Once : skimmed over the physics lesson and what squaring of the large velocity does
Mr. OneBornFree wrote:
Why aren’t they all off applying for their patents for solid aluminum saw blades for cutting through steel – [after all, it would far cheaper than what we have to use now now , surely]?; or for their patents for hollow, aluminum only, armor -piercing bullets? ...
Why do they all waste their time here letting their inner secrets of Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion known to the whole wide world when they all could be millionaires with their applied “secrets of kinetic energy” ?
You seemed to have skimmed over the physics lesson and what squaring of the large velocity does in the kinetic energy equation. You also missed what happened with high speed bullets hitting steel.
It isn't that the soft lead bullet pierces the steel and comes out the other side in tact. No. The bullet often splatters but not before transferring its energy into the steel such that it breaks steel bonds and generates a hole in the plates.
The aircraft of 9/11 WTC were not commercial aircraft, as is evident by their velocities at low elevation that otherwise their structure and engines could not sustain plus their precision in hitting the towers somewhat squarely at all.
The external walls of the towers were not continuous. They were 36 cm walls on 100 cm centers, meaning they had 64 cm window slits. The floor slabs also indicate a significant amount of vertical spacing. They were designed to support localized vertical loads. Yes, they played a significant role with a horizontally impacting aircraft, but the point is that significant space exists for an aircraft to enter.
For the parts of the plane smacking solid substance, we turn to the Sandia F4 crash tests and the MythBuster videos. These demonstrate that high velocities (squared) can do a decimating number on the weaker material. BUT, like the examples of the weaker lead bullet, energies can transfer into the stronger material and cause them to fail... sliced, punched out, etc. as observed in the aftermath.
Señor El Once : probably run its course
Dear Mr. Rogue,
This thread has probably run its course. The remnant themes regarding Bernay, MSM scripted coordination, and nuggets of truth should be preserved and brought to some other thread, but probably not the Zarembka thread. Mr. McKee may have to create us one.
I'm sure that Dr. Fetzer is subscribed. He posted his email address above [April 19, 2012 at 11:21 am] and it is: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
You may contact him directly to ask him your questions (e.g., his participation, other matters.)
In case you were curious about why Dr. Fetzer wanted me to contact him, he was interested in having me as a speaker at a 9/11 event in Vancouver. He was hoping I'd speak on Dr. Wood and DEW. Alas, without knowing what my talk would have been about or any of the details, my wife said: "Absolutely not!" Her reasons for this remained somewhat valid for my considering being on his radio show. Google can be a bitch for careers and job hunting. I am a Melvin Kitzman coward: "A coward is a hero with a wife, kids and a mortgage."
Señor El Once : having argued for the winning side in a rightful manner
Dear Mr. Roberts, you wrote:
Good, Senor. Now that you admit that we were right all along, perhaps you can apologize to Hybridrogue and myself for accusing us of being NSA agents?
I make the distinction between "finding yourself on the winning side" and "having argued for that side in a rightful manner."
I conceded points of the discussion when it was justified regardless who made them. Mr. OneSliceShort was convincing through and through. Most of your postings? Not so much.
In my apology already rendered, the fact that you cannot view yourself among the "participants whom I may have skewered", that you push for more, and that you weasel your wrongful tactics into the frame of being on the winning side, seems to shake off the dust from my A-List of the NSA Q-Group assessment of you.
It will be best for you to avoid me and to turn "likely" into "definitely" in your promise:
I’ll likely just skip over his posts anyway.
Señor El Once : depression was part of that headspace
Dear Mr. HybridRogue and Mr. Keenan Roberts,
Mr. Rogue wrote:
Wouldn’t these folks [a doubling or even tripling of the number of people who realize that the government story is a load of BS], upon finally waking up to the central fact of this, at least some large portion of them begin to look into things closer for themselves?
Yes, and that is a good thing. "Feed my sheep."
Would they not be in the same sort of headspace as many here were when it first dawned on you?
Depression was part of that headspace, because we are but individuals and (at least in my case) admitted cowards going up against a machine whereby we ourselves are cogs in our daily endeavors to shelter, clothe, and feed ourselves and etch out a pleasant life experience.
At the end of previous discussion, Mr. Rogue asked:
What does it mean to be well adjusted to a pathological society?
I don't have an answer, must contemplate more, and turn the floor back to Mr. Rogue to share his answer.
Pathology is the precise study and diagnosis of disease.
From Andrea Broadbent "The Truth about Truman": To begin, the definition of pathological actually means abnormal or grossly atypical.
To be well adjusted to an abnormal or grossly atypical society means, I guess, going along with the abnormal or grossly atypical methods, actions, and groupthink foisted on the society by those directing the cameras.
Meanwhile, Mr. Roberts wrote:
Jim Hoffman, Legge, Chandler, and the rest of the group of Pentagon disinformationists have been acting very divisively and destructively as thought police and have been shown that they have no authority and legitimacy to do what they are doing.
Let's also be responsible in our assessment. Amidst what they enforced as "thought police" were nuggets of truth. Let us be careful in our own dismissiveness not to shoot Truth in the foot in the process.
Mr. Roberts wrote:
It is time that the wider truth movement force these people out of leadership positions and recognize them as the agents of disinformation that they are.
Woa! Woa! Woa! Slow down, cowboy!
What and who are going to fill the vacuum? Better the devil that you know, you know? There is always the chance that they could redeem themselves.
Mr. Roberts wrote:
How can DRG allow such an unrepresentative clique have so much influence and pressure him to adopt a stance that nobody else in the movement supports?
He's human. He's had major health issues.
These are intellectual battles designed to zap strength, divide our forces, and start witch-hunts against many good people who have done much good for 9/11 Truth, even if a purposeful action or two from their long courageous legacy became gatekeeping on an area needing more thorough contemplation by thinkers. Let us be charitable, moral, and ethical in our assessments.
I have the hope that 9/11 leaders will reconsider evidence on lots of fronts (like Dr. Wood, like September Clues) and present proper, scholarly reviews that acknowledge nuggets of truth as well as the dross of disinformation: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
To be well adjusted to me: to have retained some moral and ethical values, a kernal of truth, the essence of love, and to reflect this in some measure in actions, the more measure of such, the merrier.
Señor El Once : pioneer in the use of pen-names
Dear Mr. 911Artists,
What you write would be an issue if they were double-dipping into social security, a salary, or working as a team within the same thread:
Mr. McKee, I think there’s a striking similarity in the content that I see being generated by “Jimtoria Hoffshley”, “Adam Syed”, and “Siberian Tiger”. The same goes for the writings of “Veritatem”, “TheFacts”, and “Rob Balsamo”.
Ben Franklin by our standards was a pioneer in the use of pen-names. It has historical precidence, and we see its value today. Why my pen-name alone has a few aliases of its own. When a name becomes a magnet for abuse, when a participant has a change of convictions [Saul=Paul], when immediate and extended family are at risk just for the name association, the reasons are many and varied for being a coward and hiding behind such [while, of course, sitting in our Star Wars PJ's at the computer keyboards in the basement of our grandmother's house as they'll acuse us.]
As already alluded to, these secret identities only become troublesome when the dishonest game is played of passing them off as unique individuals within the same thread or forum to juke support for some debate point.
The way Facebook and Google are on a jihad against internet anonymity, why, we should all be like teenage boys growing our hair long or fashioning it into a mohawk just because they can: we should take advantage of our current abilities to have secret identities just because we can. I see this freedom shrinking quickly, oh so quickly.
But please. If it is not done in an honorable way, it won't be honorable. And when such dishonorable games are played, it becomes obvious very quickly [because even good writers such as myself have difficulty keeping them straight].
In conclusion, you're making mountains out of mole hills and are way off topic. You contribute very little, and only drag your petty disagreements here that few can fatham or care about. Focus on the topic.
Señor El Once : outing of real name unethical and immoral
Dear Mr. Balsamo,
Because it wasn't germaine, I find your outing of 911Artists real name in this forum rather unethical and immoral. To know someone's real name is a different matter than publishing it for google to vacuum up and cause continual havoc.
His being a spambot, cyberstalker or whining cry baby is one thing. I think it could be ignored, and when it became too frequent, Mr. McKee can begin to ignore them when they come in for moderation, thus sparing us all.
2012-05-06
Dear Mr. Syed,
You wrote across two different postings:
Mr. McKee, it’s not just NPTs and DEWs discussions that can hijack a thread. ... For a little while there, I even thought there was some merit to the Pentagon “honeypot trap” theory (namely, that the govt will someday release a clear video showing impact, complete with, as K Barrett humorously says, “Barbara Olson smiling and waving out the window”). However, It wasn’t when I started seeing the “arguments” he was using to sweep NoC under the rug, that I became convinced his intentions were impure.
I no longer champion NPT, but there is too much to remnant evidence regarding active media participation in the ruse within the September Clues genre that needs to be fished out before that "honeypot trap" gets dismissed.
Likewise, I'm open to having my mind changed that DEW is a "honeypot trap." However, on our way to settling this, the sacred cow of nano-thermite is going to get slaughtered. We're going to see that A&E9-11Truth, while harping about super-duper nano-thermite flakes in the dust, did not themselves test for any other type of incendiary within that dust, just like the govt didn't, and used lame arguments to keep "no testing" as such when this was pointed out.
Wrapped into this puzzle is the fact that unvetted, unthorough, and unsystemmatic govt reports on radiation were produced that were accepted unchallenged. A nuclear physicists deep within the leadership of the 9/11 movement explained away the radiation readings with a couple scientific slights-of-hand. ["Radiation of types A, B, and C were measured, but didn't match the radiation signatures of just these three known common types of nuclear weapons, thus NO NUKES were used." And no speculation was given into what could account for those radiation readings, which, by the way, were characterized as being at trace levels, requiring traces levels to be re-defined 55 times greater than they were previously.]
On our way to ruling DEW in or out for some part of the WTC destruction, we're going to discover that pulverization is a massive energy sink, as is hot-spot duration, that as of this date we do not have adequate explanations for. [No, not even nano-thermite can do it.] Meanwhile, those radiation reports from the govt [probably juked low by the govt] was still damning enough that a nuclear physicists deep within the leadership of the 9/11 movement had to step in bury it even further.
My bets for part of the destruction are still on nuclear powered DEW that could be directed precisely to not hit the structure they were mounted on, which in the case of WTC-1 later became known as "the spire." Something confusing to me is the cavernous and glassy bed rock area that was discovered under WTC-4 that they attribute to geological formations [a nugget of truth from Dimitri K.]
I know that Dr. Wood's textbook has some disinformation, such as her leading but unanswered questions [in relation to 9/11] into "free-energy from space," Hutchison Effects, discounting hot-spots, and Hurricane Erin's role. But she at least brings up the energy questions that all theories-du-jour need to address. She has a whole series of anomalous vehicle damage that n-o-b-o-d-y ever talks about. [DEW rays slipping out through window openings could partially.] I'd like to know how all of the vehicles along West Broadway got torched BEFORE WTC-7 was demolished.
hybridrogue1 : science fiction balderdash
hybridrogue1 says:
May 7, 2012 at 12:34 am
Señor,
You say:
“I know that Dr. Wood’s textbook has some disinformation, such as her leading but unanswered questions [in relation to 9/11] into “free-energy from space,” Hutchison Effects, discounting hot-spots, and Hurricane Erin’s role.”
And I asked you before what you knew about Hutchison Effects and you said that you knew little but what was conveyed by Wood. So I will tell you what was in the hints I gave you at the time we were discussing this stuff before; Hutchison Effects have been determined to be due to the man himself, not his machinery, which NEVER worked when he wasn’t present. It is considered to be a form of poltergeist, he seems to have been endowed with psychokinetic abilities. I read a lot about this researching anti-gravity several years ago.
Hurricane Erin’s role is utter science fiction balderdash.
Free energy will come from the inner energies of the planet Earth itself according to Tesla.
“I’d like to know how all of the vehicles along West Broadway got torched BEFORE WTC-7 was demolished.”~Señor
Man, we went through this as well, the damn cars were towed there from the areas around the towers…it is documented fact. I gave you Jenkins papers on this, he fricking proves these things there, and there are no rational arguments against the facts as he lays them out as provided by public information on all counts, plus photo evidence.
You have issues Mr. Once, and I have a prepared statement ready to post as soon as the proper thread comes up to do so. You have the badge of a 4 year chump to wear on the NPT situation, and this is not addressed in full here as of yet.
ww
Señor El Once : Okay by me if Hutchison Effects are taken off of the table
I wrote yesterday:
I know that Dr. Wood’s textbook has some disinformation, such as her leading but unanswered questions [in relation to 9/11] into “free-energy from space,” Hutchison Effects, discounting hot-spots, and Hurricane Erin’s role.
Mr. HybridRogue wrote:
And I asked you before what you knew about Hutchison Effects and you said that you knew little but what was conveyed by Wood. So I will tell you what was in the hints I gave you at the time we were discussing this stuff before; Hutchison Effects have been determined to be due to the man himself, not his machinery, which NEVER worked when he wasn’t present. It is considered to be a form of poltergeist, he seems to have been endowed with psychokinetic abilities. I read a lot about this researching anti-gravity several years ago.
What you write about psychokinetic abilities is news to me; it doesn't surprise me that it only worked when he was present; and it takes nothing away from what I wrote yesterday. The crafty way in which Dr. Wood's textbook is written, one first has to determine viability or voracity of a concept and then one can contemplate applicability (to 9/11). Honestly, I had hopes that the Hutchison Effect would be a real scientific principle and repeatable. Okay by me if Hutchison Effects are taken off of the table.
You write:
Hurricane Erin’s role is utter science fiction balderdash.
Ja-ein as they say in German. Dr. Wood hints that Hurricane Erin could have provided free energy to some destructive device. Returning to the questions of viability/voracity and applicability in this regard, maybe your labeling is appropriate.
Hurricane Erin should not be swept under the table too quickly, if for no other reason than it demonstrated coordinated efforts by the media into ignoring it so as to not distract from the show they were going to help put over. Also, many hints suggest that it was being controlled. (a) It could have been a reason not to go to work that morning. (b) Why were certain FEMA command centers set up on a pier if they could be so easily damaged by a shifting hurricane? (c) Hurricane's suck and made for clear skies and predictable wind patterns useful in recording the event and handling any necessary media manipulation. [Media manipulation did happen, as evident by multiple versions of the same footage.] (d) The hurricane may have been a back-up plan to obscuficate the evidence or hide events should some of the original plans fail.
You write:
Free energy will come from the inner energies of the planet Earth itself according to Tesla.
Returning to the questions of viability/voracity and applicability in this regard, the former may be assured (one can hope) but suppressed by the PTB. Again, however, applicability to 9/11 is rather nebulous.
I wrote:
I’d like to know how all of the vehicles along West Broadway got torched BEFORE WTC-7 was demolished.
You responded:
Man, we went through this as well, the damn cars were towed there from the areas around the towers…it is documented fact.
No, no, no, no.
No, we did not go through this. We discussed cars damaged in other areas and towed to the bridge.
We did not discuss any of the vehicles damaged along West Broadway essentially perpendicular to the WTC complex. My avatar is one such vehicle.
I am not going to let you get off so easily on this one. Here are two such images. The first image is West Broadway with WTC-5 on fire at the end. More importantly, you can see WTC-7. The second image is West Broadway looking the other direction; you can see the same torched bus.
There's a great video of some reporter coming out from WTC-7 who didn't know really where he was but was commenting on the damage to car after car after car as it looking like a war zone.
Study these videos from WCBS Vince Dimentri who was at West Broadway and Barkley:
"Car after car after car and buses completely obliverated and burned down to the steel... That gaping hole? That's where one of the twin towers stood."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR0IL7K39v4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Szgj5yUSdc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI10oG1Gzrg&feature=related
You continued:
I gave you Jenkins papers on this, he fricking proves these things there, and there are no rational arguments against the facts as he lays them out as provided by public information on all counts, plus photo evidence.
I honestly do not know what you are talking about. Dr. Jenkins to my knowledge never discusses the damage to these vehicles in question.
Mr. Rogue continues:
You have issues Mr. Once, and I have a prepared statement ready to post as soon as the proper thread comes up to do so. You have the badge of a 4 year chump to wear on the NPT situation, and this is not addressed in full here as of yet.
How quaint!
Yep, I'll wear that badge of a 4-year chump on NPT. While you're making badges, how many years will be embroidered on your nano-thermite chump badge?
Señor El Once : so bloody simple
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
One of your tells is the manner with which you try to dismiss unique anomalies under the guise of being "obvious" to the situation. Case in point:
And it is so bloody simple to note that these vehicles were right in the path of the pyroclastic flow from the erupted towers – churning dust clouds with burning particulates. It seems obvious that such might toast a few vehicles in it’s path.
So, you're saying that the pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates? That this was done to an extreme to torch cars?
Watch those videos again. This time, pay attention to both the things that got torched and the things that didn't. Pay attention to where those burned and unburned things were.
From the still shot of the third video in my postings, we see Mr. Dementri pointing over his right shoulder to the gaping hole where the tower once stood; the building on the left is WTC-5; the building behind his head is WTC-7. Behold the mail truck (below his arm) that is closer to the WTC and isn't torched. Behold the vehicles behind him that are dusty from that "pyroclastic cloud" and close to the WTC but not torched.
Here's a great picture:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg
Federal building is on the left and WTC-7 is on the right, and WTC-5 burns. Mail truck on the right appears unaffected, yet mail truck towards the center appears to have its front end a bit toasty. The vehicle in front of that mail truck I believe is the back end of the fire truck given as my avatar. [Guess maybe it wasn't torched yet, because its lights appear functional.]
My avatar's firetruck.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image184.jpg
In the following image, why were certain cars toasted and others not? And if this "pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates", why didn't the tree or its leaves get toasted? What about the paper?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image175.jpg
In the following image, explain why the "pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates" not burn the rear door of the police car in the lower right?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
The following image is further down the street and shows the same police car whose whole front end appears to be covered in debris but is not burned. Had it been on fire, its front plastic bumper would have been one of the first casualties. How come the "pyroclastic flow was churning out burning particulates" didn't take out the working stop lights?
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
The testimony of Patricia Ondrovic is worthy of considering:
As I was running up Vesey, the first car blew up on me on the corner of Vessey and the West Side Highway. ... I ended up running through this park, and I couldn't even see where I was running anymore. I kept running North [through North Park]... As I was running up here, two or three more cars exploded on me. They weren't near any buildings at that point, they were just parked on the street. The traffic guys hadn't gotten a chance to tow anything yet, cause this was all during the first hour I guess of this thing happening. So there were still cars parked on the street that were completely independent of that. Three cars blew up on me, stuff was being thrown.
9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby
The above statement have some bearing on the destruction cloud from WTC-1 rolling toward the parking lot.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Toasted_lot_wtc1.gif
Just after WTC-1 is destroyed, fires start to burn in the large parking lot. But not the paper?!
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/18wtc099sl7.jpg
Here are several more images to consider:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/19wtc108rj0.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image8.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toastedlot_93a1f7e6e7.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg
The point is that a "pyroclastic flow churning out burning particulates" would not have been so particular in what it chose to burn and what chose not to. Paper among other things would have fallen victim.
The line-of-sight beams of a directed energy weapon within the towers slipping out through the tower's window slits, on the other hand, would have been a little bit more selective, ignoring paper yet exciting large Eddy currents in metal, leading to heat and combustion of paint, door handles, gas caps, seals, etc. touching such metal. [EMP has similar characteristics.]
I have developed a taste for humble pie. Are you man enough to graciously eat a slice or two?
Señor El Once : consensus theme lead astray
Dear Readers of this thread:
I apologize for my detours into anomalous vehicle damage and DEW. What I do not apologize for is pointing out that all information about 9/11 is disinformation.
The discussion is supposed to be about the consensus panel failing to have even consensus on who is on the panel and what information gets consideration. The most vocal complaints are that they are ignoring the evidence of CIT's flyover theory.
My point in the distraction is that if we sit too assuredly on a consensus theme like "nano-thermite was involved in 9/11," we're likely to be purposely led astray from the fact that this doesn't address all of the evidence. [After calculating how much nano-thermite would be required to pulverize the towers and then calculating the quantities required to sustain the under-rubble hot-spots, Mr. HybridRogue should calculate the quantities (clumped like kitty litter) required to remain burning in a pyroclastic cloud for several seconds to then land on vehicles and blow them up instantly.]
The massive energy requirements of pulverization via the basic principles of high school chemistry and physics are to my knowledge not being addressed by points of the concensus panel either. Nor are many pieces of anomalous evidence as already exhibited.
Thus we see how we are being played.
[I'm already cutting myself a piece of humble pie with regards to how I have championed Dr. Wood. We can cut a big piece and say she is disinformation, and then plunge on ahead with our mining, refining, and re-purposing nuggets of truth contained therein.]
Señor El Once : nullify any edge that you detect
Ooops! My bad. I should have been repeating your version of "pyroclastic flow ... churning dust clouds with burning particulates" as opposed to my rendition of "pyroclastic flow churning out burning particulates." Sorry for the repeated misquote. If it bothers you, I can fix the mistake, post it again, and have Mr. McKee remove the bad one.
Thus you can nullify any edge that you detect as we substitute in your phrasing.
Doesn't change my argument. The moving dust clouds combined with the distances traveled would act to rapidly smother and cool any burning particulates. Assuming your premise of the extent of burning particulates that would torch cars in the catticorner parking lot some distance away, they would not have been so selective regarding what they burned, ignoring trees & humans & paper & flags & orange plastic traffic barriers & street signs & traffic signals and opting instead for steel in vehicles that just happened to be line-of-sight with towers.
You are correct that timing of when images were taken can mislead. Certainly much paper debris came flowing in with the dust (although it wasn't flying in on fire). The amount of dust on paper can provide some indication of how long the paper might have been there. Possibly some [but not necessarily all] of the undamaged emergency vehicles near WTC-7 observed in the background of the reporter's piece may have arrived after the torching of vehicles on West Broadway but before the reporter. But some of them appear to have been NOT line-of-sight to where the towers were and may have been shielded by the Federal Building and WTC-7.
Pay attention to the trees and their leaves in the following four images.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
Very selective those burning particulates in the dust cloud.
I just discovered an interesting anomaly in a collection of photos that Dr. Wood borrowed from infoWarsMedia. Several images like the following from 2001-09-18 is a mirrored image:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/DX-2.jpg
P.S. I think I got the location of my avatar's firetruck wrong. It was not along West Broadway but on Vessey around the corner of the Federal Building closer to WTC-6.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image184.jpg
So my previous comment about the following image was in error: "The vehicle in front of that mail truck I believe is the back end of the fire truck given as my avatar. [Guess maybe it wasn't torched yet, because its lights appear functional.]"
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image157.jpg
Señor El Once : more parsing could be done between misinformation and disinformation
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
Fair enough that more parsing could be done between misinformation and disinformation, but participants such as yourself more and more use that as an excuse to detour from the salient point: wrong information was in the mix and effort must be spent to ferret out the right.
My poster-child of all information about 9/11 containing disinformation is your hero, the discoverer and founder of nano-thermite in the dust: Dr. Steven Jones. You do not even acknowledge the exposed slights-of-hand in his scientific analysis regarding the evidence of nuclear radiation. You ignore the boojie woojie high school chemistry & math that exposes the weaknesses of super-duper nano-thermite (and all other incendiaries) in explaining hot-spots, let alone pulverization and now "pyroclastic flow … churning dust clouds with burning particulates" to account for anomalous vehicle damage.
Yes, yes, yes, okay by me to take the position that September Clues and Dr. Wood's textbook are disinformation. But so much money was spent in their quality productions -- which both of them are -- that to bury them without ascertaining nuggets of truth from the "gloss" of disinformation is Act II of the disinfo play that you seem to direct. [Recognize how other avenues towards 9/11 truth run often parallel.]
And this is why the concensus panel is doomed to failure: They sweep with a non-discerning big broom leaving such a sanitized view of govt & PTB involvement in 9/11 that methods & means remain available for re-use and re-deployment against us. The USA PATRIOT ACT was no fluke, neither was "Heimland" Security.
Señor El Once : a back-handed champion
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
I have repeatedly demonstrated an open-mind and a willingness to change that mind when the facts change. I admit to being a back-handed champion of certain fringe theories I didn't fully believe just so that science, evidence, and proper analysis could set me straight (into full belief or full disbelief) and just so nuggets of truth would be preserved and addressed.
I have repeatedly stated that I didn't want to be the sole duped useful idiot on some topic and that I desired to be brought back into the fold.
You've written more than once the hint that you have a statement (or essay or whatever) already prepared to put me in my place.
May 7, 2012 at 12:34 am
You have issues Mr. Once, and I have a prepared statement ready to post as soon as the proper thread comes up to do so. You have the badge of a 4 year chump to wear on the NPT situation, and this is not addressed in full here as of yet.
Meanwhile, I shall hold my compendium of noted Maxwellian jabberwacky from the last thread, yet still for another thread.
And taking more time with this here is not my interest, nor the forums at this time. I am sure we will have a chance at some time for detailed debate point by point. I am sure you look forward to it as much as I.
Will you not let this stand until the proper time?
You've already been to web locations that expose my email address. Don't keep me in suspense.
Looking forward to more waxing philosophical from you ala:
Four years a chump doth a self righteous riot make. O'how clever art thou ringmaster spatmonkey.
hybridrogue1 : A can of worms
hybridrogue1 says:
May 8, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Señor {with the required rolling of the tongue} El Once,
A can of worms remains open on the table here, and at the risk of it overflowing the forum with squirming shadows, I feel the issue is in need of redress.
I do not consider it unfair nor rude to point these things out to you__and would hope you can appreciate my misgivings.
You have admitted here on this thread to having been chumped – for four years no less, on the issue of NPT. You credit OSS with finally opening your eyes to this just days ago. Four years is a substantial length of time Señor. One can attend and graduate from college in four years.
What strikes me, and I am sure at least a couple of others here is; in going into the argument with Mr. Fetzer, it was clear FROM THE VERY START that his physics are utter nonsense. It was clear that his argumentation was totally juvenile. It was indeed obvious that he is dishonest {or loosing his senses}. Yet for some 800 something posts you supported or waffled in-between, during this exchange.
Personally, I cannot see any reason to take your judgment seriously. You were duped for 4 years on an issue that is clearly based in nonsense. Now you continue to support ideas that are equally untenable. Perhaps being so frank is unkind–hard truths are indeed unkind – this is the nature of our existence…we must all deal with such things.
I like you Señor, but I cannot allow this to hush my honest assessment.
Just two for instances here recently:
>toasted/080 jpg: It is September in this shot – the trees would be full bloom – take a closer look Señor, the leaves ARE charred.
>081 jpg: again a September scene, same thing, the trees are mostly stripped of leaves. And the area has obviously been attended to this is not a raw aftermath shot.
To go through every one of these pics here and now is not something I am willing to do.
To go through arguments about Thermate and the hot spots that we have gone round’n’round about already – yet one more time – is not something I am willing to do.
IF Mr. McKee offers a page especially for these arguments THEN I will be willing to go into minute detail on all of your issues. I will not make an argument to you – Fetzer – nor anyone else in other than a public arena.
So again – drop this until that arena comes available.
ww
Señor El Once : now for your criticism
2012-05-09
{This was posted but never published by mutual agreement between Mr. McKee and me. I was going to put this into another more relevant thread, but it was already too long. I decided to wait for a Dr. Judy Wood thread.}
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
When are you going to learn how to post a reply that appears where it should? Sounds to me like you've got more than mobile issues if you can't handle that simple blog operation. [Are you writing off-line first in Notepad or something else like you should?]
Meanwhile, your habit of always making top-level posts does a negative number on the readability of the comment section. [On purpose?] Make a more concerted effort, please.
Too chicken to contact me directly off-list? In my experience, this is another sign of an agent.
Ah, now for your criticism:
You have admitted here on this thread to having been chumped – for four years no less, on the issue of NPT. You credit OSS with finally opening your eyes to this just days ago. Four years is a substantial length of time Señor. One can attend and graduate from college in four years.
Bravo! That's not the full story, nor is it in my vocabulary. I've been championing on-and-off for the last four years September Clues, which goes well beyond just NPT and still has nuggets of truth. [What nuggets of truth do you acknowledge there? Show some objectivity.] Mr. OneSliceShort also admits to being taken in by September Clues, albeit maybe not for the length of my tenure; and he acknowledges that it still has nuggets of truth.
As for NPT itself, I've waffled considerably over the last four years depending on what evidence was presented, trying to cover all my bases, and being open-minded and objective. I've always been NCPT (no commercial planes theory), which you still are and has overlapping points with NPT.
What were the main points that held me in a waffling NPT spell? (1) The (seeming) discrepancies in flight paths from view-to-view. (2) The multiple versions of the same shot (e.g., the orb shot, the nothing shot, the plane shot, and the plane-from-different-direction-and-no-background shot). [This is still a red flag.] (3) The velocities in excess of what the (commercial) aircraft was capable of at 1/2 mile above sea level in terms of its structure and engine thrust. [This is still a red flag and is only addressed by assuming it wasn't a commercial plane.] (4) The lack of expected crash physics [had the velocities been less]. (5) The glitches in various footage where wings went missing, colors changed. (6) The miraculous zoom-in's and pan's with focus. [This is still a red flag and proves media foreknowledge.]
It isn't as if I've spent the last four years in a brain-dead stupor. I wasn't married to NPT. I championed it precisely so that strong, valid counter-arguments could set me straight. The vast majority of the time, those strong, valid counter-arguments were: "You're bat-shit crazy to believe in NPT!" I'm like: "Of course I am, but that doesn't make it wrong. Please address the issues." I spent a lot of that time in other forums debating blinder-wearing, flag-waving, patriotic ninnies who could barely type a grammatically correct sentence. Even you, Mr. HybridRogue, presented little except your learned opinion.
What convinced me? The foundations began to shake with my direct interactions with Mr. Shack that I didn't even have until just a few short months ago. Nothing like having the (alleged) maker of September Clues shoot holes in it by discrediting himself.
The video posted by Mr. OneSliceShort about the final 12 seconds of Flight 175 did blew out massive chunks of the foundation. I'd seen the Sandia fighter crash, but I reasoned it was not a commercial aircraft, it was sturdier, and certainly didn't have seats, luggage, or crash-test dummies that we got to see splattered. However from my research, seeing the two MythBusters videos (rocket sled to smash car and racket sled with wedge to slice car) really made it hit home what velocity-squared can do to the materials of vehicles at high velocities.
You make a big deal out four years being a long time to be chumped by something. How long have you been chumped by Dr. Jones and super-duper nano-thermite? [Before my March Spring Break, you were tasked with contacting Dr. Jones regarding my criticisms of his "no nukes" paper and the lack of thermite calculations on quantities required to achieve hot-spots.]
What strikes me, and I am sure at least a couple of others here is; in going into the argument with Mr. Fetzer, it was clear FROM THE VERY START that his physics are utter nonsense. It was clear that his argumentation was totally juvenile.
Not completely true. Dr. Fetzer's understanding of crash physics was actually right on the money... for vehicle closing velocities less than, say, 150 mph. This would be the case for vehicles on the highway or aircraft landing, which is the bulk of our human experience and (passive or active) research into crash physics that are hard to avoid from newspapers and television news. Commercial aircraft fly such speeds (or slightly greater) at low altitudes because they are typically landing and because their engines are not designed to produce the thrust needed to go faster in thick air and its heavy drag.
Dr. Fetzer and I had the same misunderstanding with respect to velocity-squared and how this plays out on common structural elements of vehicles when extremely high velocities (400-500 mph) are in the mix. This is not intuitive. For me to correct my misunderstanding, it took research into bullets, Sandia jet crashes, and two MythBuster episodes that used rocket sleds and high-speed cameras.
It was indeed obvious that he is dishonest {or loosing his senses}. Yet for some 800 something posts you supported or waffled in-between, during this exchange.
I loved the way you misframe my participation in the ~875 postings. As opposed to your more than 275 postings (>31%) and Dr. Fetzer's more than 176 postings (>20%), I only had about 40, and only about 16 of those were relevant to the physics or to Dr. Fetzer. Moreover, my position evolved the more education I obtained from outside sources. By my 5th (of those 16 postings), I was laying the foundation of evidence that began to get me teetering.
The majority of those relevant 16 postings from me took Dr. Fetzer to task for illogical arguments, for misuse of language, for not substantiating his hologram hypothesis, etc.
Personally, I cannot see any reason to take your judgment seriously. You were duped for 4 years on an issue that is clearly based in nonsense.
Personally, I cannot see any reason to take your judgment seriously. How many years have you been duped by super-duper nano-thermite? How long have you been ignoring the evidence of radiation? You have lame explanations for content pulverization and the torching of vehicles.
Now you continue to support ideas that are equally untenable.
Like what? Be specific.
Just like I easily ditched NPT for NCPT based on evidence, science, and the proper application thereof, I am more than willing to set aside any and all ideas that may be equally untenable given the same highlighted conditions and considerations.
Yes, I'm a bat-shit crazy thorn in your side to get you (and others) on the same page in at least reading and comprehending Dr. Wood's textbook. And it isn't because what she has the gospel of 9/11 [she doesn't], but because it is the only tool in my arsenal to get you (and the 9/11 Truth Movement) thinking outside the box so that we can eventually get at the truth of 9/11.
Just two for instances here recently:
>toasted/080 jpg: It is September in this shot – the trees would be full bloom – take a closer look Señor, the leaves ARE charred.
>081 jpg: again a September scene, same thing, the trees are mostly stripped of leaves. And the area has obviously been attended to this is not a raw aftermath shot.
You needed to look at all four images, not just two.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/081swamp.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/toasted/080.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image19swamp.jpg
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image20swamp.jpg
You were claiming that a "churning dust clouds with burning particulates" caused the torching of the bus and many vehicles along West Broadway. Yet when all four images are taken into consideration, only one tree looks charred (Image19swamp.jpg and Image20swamp.jpg) mostly because of the overall darkness of the scene due to smoke clouding the sun. When the same trees are observed several days later (081swamp.jpg and 080.jpg), the tree in the middle still has greenish leaves (not brown, black, or missing). The trunks of all of the trees show little in the way of fire damage from burning particulates in the dust clouds. Ergo, WTF caused the vehicles (line-of-sight) to get torched, and not other combustible things and things not light-of-sight (as shown by the reporter's video)?
To go through every one of these pics here and now is not something I am willing to do.
Avoid the issue, as usual. Afraid of what you mind might be jarred into considering?
To go through arguments about Thermate and the hot spots that we have gone round’n’round about already – yet one more time – is not something I am willing to do.
It only seems a carousel, because truth always is and because truth always comes back around as long as you ride false pogo-horses on their spins.
The reality is that mild-mannered and nice Dr. Steven Jones has in his wonderful legacy for the 9/11 Truth Movement a couple of defects in his analysis designed to mislead and dupe. You are dizzy because you don't want to be objective and acknowledge that.
You regularly frame our debates on super-duper nano-thermite, hot spots, and nuclear evidence as won by you and therefore being a carousel being spun by "bat-shit crazy" me.
The reality is that you got tripped up by high school chemistry that exposes the defects of super-duper nano-thermite. And even turning to the work of Kevin Ryan or direct email exchanges with Frank Legge could not resolve them, and ended up re-enforcing my points: only totally massively ginormous quantities of remnant incendiaries (and super-duper nano-thermite) can account for hot-spots. This is not reasonable.
We need to be looking for other destructive mechanisms and energy sources.
The fact that we haven't already is most telling of the 9/11 leadership (and those manipulating them).
And it is telling of you.
Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.
~ Leo Tolstoy
++++++++++++++
Mr. Keenan Roberts wrote:
It has become apparent that one of the main NPT hijackers from that fiasco has tried his best to push this current discussion thread off the rails into Judy Jetson’s DEWoowoo WonderLand.
Future such ad hominem assessments of Dr. Wood's textbook will not be tolerated without substantiation.
Put your money where your mouth is, Agent Roberts. Or are you too chicken, just like Mr. HybridRogue? Afraid you might learn something? Afraid you might have to eat humble pie?
This isn't to say that you're not going to find faults; let's put this as a carrot on the stick to get you moving: find the faults [but acknowledge the nuggets of truth as well]. One way or another the evidence that she presents (even if falsely analyzed) will be addressed.
Señor El Once : Choicepoint
Mr. HybridRogue wrote:
** Moreover, Armitage was a director at Choicepoint, which provided DNA testing on 9/11 victims through its subsidiary, Bode Technology.**
Just another rinky-dink coincidence?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ChoicePoint
ChoicePoint, a corporation based near Atlanta, Georgia, USA, which claims to be the “nation’s leading supplier of identification and credential verification services,” is the company whose DBT subsidiary spoiled the electoral roll in Florida enabling George W. Bush to “win” the 2000 presidential election.
…
In 1998, the state of Florida signed a $4 million contract with Database Technologies (DBT Online), which later merged into ChoicePoint, for the purposes of providing a central voter file listing those barred from voting. As of 2002, Florida is the only state which hires a private firm for these purposes. Prior to contracting with Database Technologies, Florida contracted with a smaller operator for $5,700 per year. The state of Florida contracted with DBT in November 1998, following the controversial Miami mayoral race of 1997. The 1998 contracting process involved no bidding and was worth $2,317,800.
…
ChoicePoint has been criticized, by many critics of the 2000 election, for having a bias in favor of the Republican Party, for knowingly using inaccurate data, and for racial discrimination. Allegations include listing voters as felons for alleged crimes said to have been committed several years in the future. In addition, people who had been convicted of a felony in a different state and had their rights restored by said state, were not allowed to vote despite the restoration of their rights. (One should note Schlenther v. Florida Department of State (June 1998) which ruled that Florida could not prevent a man convicted of a felony in Connecticut, where his civil rights had not been lost, from exercising his civil rights.) Furthermore, it is argued that people were listed as felons based on a coincidence of names, despite other data (such as date of birth) which showed that the criminal record did not apply to the voter in question.
Journalist Greg Palast has argued that the firm cooperated with Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, and Florida Elections Unit Chief Clay Roberts, in a conspiracy of voter fraud, involving the central voter file, during the US Presidential Election of 2000. The allegations charge that 57,700 people (15% of the list), primarily Democrats of African-American and Hispanic descent, were incorrectly listed as felons and thus barred from voting. Palast estimates that 80% of these people would have voted, and that 90% of those who would have voted, would have voted for Al Gore. The official (and disputed) margin of victory, in the election, was 537 votes.
ChoicePoint Vice President Martin Fagan has admitted that at least 8,000 names were incorrectly listed in this fashion when the company passed on a list given by the state of Texas, these 8,000 names were removed prior to the election. Fagan has described the error as a “minor glitch”. ChoicePoint, as a matter of policy, does not verify the accuracy of its data and argues that it is the user’s responsibility to verify accuracy.
On April 17, 2000, at a special Congressional hearing in Atlanta, ChoicePoint Vice-President James Lee testified that Florida had ordered DBT to add to the list voters who matched 80% of an ineligible voter’s name; middle initials and suffixes were to be dropped, while nicknames and aliases were added. In addition, names were considered reversible, for example; Clarence Thomas could be added in place of Thomas Clarence. Lee opened his testimony by noting that ChoicePoint intended to get out of the voter purge industry. Then, on February 16, 2001, DBT Senior Vice-President George Bruder testified before the US Civil Rights Commission that the company had misinformed the Florida Supervisors of Elections regarding the usage of race in compiling the list. Greg Palast concludes, “An African-American felon named John Doe might wipe out the registration of an innocent African-American Will Whiting, but not the rights of an innocent Caucasian Will Whiting.” Palast believes that 80%, of the 57,700 people he argues were illegally barred from voting, were African-American.
Señor El Once : the theme of Dr. Legge
To the theme of Dr. Legge, the only thing that impressed me about the Legge/Chandler anti-CIT article of last year just prior to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was the fact that Dr. Legge was able to get Mr. Chandler to loan his name to it and participate given that paper's glaring weaknesses that even this non-pilot could see. Mr. Chandler's videos of high school physics applied to the demolitions are legacy works worth building upon.
After my subsequent on & off-list communication with Mr. Chandler, I have the impression that his participation was willing and active. He probably drafted the off-topic paragraph within that very article that made sweeping dismissals of Dr. Wood and guilt-by-associations innuendos, made the worse when he has her textbook but admits to not finishing reading it.
So, naturally, my eye-brow went up when Mr. Rogue was contacting Dr. Legge off-list to get second opinions for our energy, burn-rate, and radiation discussions.
It appears to me that the result of Mr. Rogue's more in-depth communication with Dr. Legge may be a tainting of Mr. Rogue's impressions of Dr. Legge from where they were initially. At the time Mr. Rogue was about as effective as could be expected given the source in relaying Dr. Legge's comments -- some of them weasely -- to the points I was making on the subject at hand.
I encourage Mr. Rogue to take some contemplative moments to re-think (and/or re-read) our exchange. An opportunity might be available sooner rather than later to put any words you might write on the subject into play.
Señor El Once : no clocks, no calendars
Dear Mr. HybridRogue,
You wrote on May 16, 2012 at 11:34 am:
I see Señor, no clocks, no calendars at your house. I didn’t contact Legge until near the end of the battle with Fetzer on the last thread. Never once asked him about “second opinions for our energy, burn-rate, and radiation discussions”.
For point of reference, here is one of your postings on the Fetzer thread where you mention Dr. Legge. April 18, 2012 at 9:35 pm
I see this with Legge as well, in such attitudes as “it would be difficult to stage all the evidence of aircraft wreckage inside the Pentagon”.
Note the time stamp and also that the end of that thread would have been in late April or early May.
Yet, to my astonishment that my memory is better than yours, I went to the article where you first brought up your communication with Dr. Legge. Here are but two examples and pay attention to the date stamps.
March 22, 2012 at 2:04 pm Mr. HybridRogue1 says:
I had quite a long email discussion with Frank Legge, dealing with both the nuclear and digital image topics as per 9/11. We spoke about other 9/11 issues as well, he sent me his newest PDF on the Pentagon strike. ... Anyway, when I get a little more organized today, I will pass along some of his comments as per the nuclear issue. I had provided him with some of both of our remarks, as to where are points of disagreement arise. I gave him your complete words, and was as fair to your presentation as I could be.
Email from Frank Legge: ... All we can say, regarding the rather amazingly long duration, is that the amount of material must have been surprisingly large.
My responses to these March postings are close by, for those curious.
I see Señor Rogue. Captain Doodah is not going to make hay out of no clocks, no calendars, and no Ctrl+F search at your house as is fitting for someone of your stature, advanced years, and AARP membership. More power to you. I see how you didn’t contact Legge until near the end of the battle with Fetzer on the last thread [and how you] never once asked him about “second opinions for our energy, burn-rate, and radiation discussions” as well. Not.
You do a fine job of stoking the coal in my old steam engine all by yourself, thank you very much.
However, now that your memory has been refreshed and you'll be re-visiting the March discussion, I repeat my humble request to take some contemplative moments to re-think (and/or re-read) our exchange. How does your new assessment of Dr. Legge translate into your opinions relating to that discussion today. Write those thoughts down but hold posting it. An opportunity might be available sooner rather than later to put any words you might write on the subject into play.
Señor El Once : did not test for any other kinds of explosive residue
Dear Señor Rogue, you wrote:
In a nutshell {where you will be most comfortable, aye Señor}, this is my argument:
It is PROVEN that nanothermates were one of the explosive/incendiaries used in the World Trade Tower’s destruction__proven.
You write that (and other things) almost as if I've been arguing that super duper nano-thermite wasn't used and wasn't involved, and that nukes, DEW, or video fakery done did the deed.
Let me correct the record. The answer could very well be E. All of the above. And this is where the 911TM is getting led around by their noses and following false idols in such mutually exclusive thinking.
Jones was on the trail of the thermites from the time he began investigating the orange glowing liquid metal pouring from the corner of one of the towers. He set out on that trail specifically and meticulously.
I guess his nose was so close to the ground in following that trail that he wasn't able to see how the 9/11TM was misuing his findings and extrapolating it erroneously to explain demolition features that it cannot.
It was never his assertion that thermates were the only explosives used, and time and again said the was most likely other plastique explosives involved.
Here's the big red flag that I only recently came across. Dr. Jones and everybody at the 911TM central office did not test for any other kinds of explosive residue in their collected dust samples EITHER. And when this was brought to their attention not that many years ago, it was argued (paraphrased): "We are probably passed the 'expiration date' of being able to detect such residue. If our reports come out that we didn't find anything, the govt will use that to whack us down. Better not to test at all."
Moreover, we can chalk it up to NIST and Dr. Sunder for debunking "the involvement of other plastique explosives" from the relatively quiet decibel recordings that would have been dead-giveaways for such. He wouldn't have made such a lame argument if it wasn't true because they knew what the real destructive mechanisms were.
Just like Dr. Jones never made any calculations into quantities of super duper nano-thermite required for pulverization AND hot-spots, the same is true for other plastique explosives. The likelihood of them being remnant & unconsumed in the rubble AND accounting for the hot-spot duration is zippo. Or do you forget that my high school math was done purposely with relatively slow burn-rate (3,000 fps) explosives? When you crank up their explosive potential to achieve pulverization via ramping up the burn-rate, you make that damn "imaginary garden hose packed with such" significantly longer than 884k miles to account for hot-spots. I don't know whether the inside diameter of that damn imaginary garden hose is < 1/8" or > 1", but either way, it represents a cross-sectional area that when multiplied by its length calculates into massive volumes and weight ABOVE AND BEYOND what was consumed in the initial seconds. And then this translates into a logistics nightmare that would be hard to pull off.
For the life of me, I can only think of a couple reason why you, Señor Rogue, are so obtuse in failing to recognize or acknowledge these glaring issues.
However, the central point is: Nanothermates – proven. Nukes? Unproven speculation. DEW? Unproven speculation. Video Fakery? Proven bullshit.
Super duper nano-thermite was in the dust. But it hasn't been proven to do squat. Where are the tests that show how it can pulverize concrete? Where is the high school chemistry that proves it can account for the duration of hot spots without massively ginormous quantities?
As for nuclear anything, be it weapon or reactor? Guess what? Radiation was proven, and super duper nano-thermite don't account for nada in this regard. In fact, Dr. Jones never contested this to the extreme that he even accepted the govt's flawed report on radiation measurements going into his own logically flawed and "nothing to see here, folks!" paper that supposedly debunked all nuclear weapons. And to assure us that we have nothing to worry about, he concludes that the radiation readings were at trace level after he pulled the scientific trick of re-defining trace level to be 55 times greater than it was previously.
To say "Nukes? Unproven speculation." is to accept the framing put around it that purposely stopped speculation into the matter.
Same thing applies to your statement: "DEW? Unproven speculation." DEW devices exist. DEW devices can blast rockets out of the sky and repel protesters at OWS rallies. You're old enough to remember from the 1980's [when I was in engineering school] President Reagan's Star Wars program that became the Strategic Defense Inititive (and then other names and acronyms suggested by PR people). These were most certainly not public work creation programs for the super overly educated and without any expectation of one day producing anything useful to the Department of Defense.
To say "Video Fakery? Proven bullshit." You're wrong.
Imagery manipulation on 9/11 is not bullshit, it did happen, and this is one of the nuggets from September Clues that you also fail to recognize. Granted, it was not done to the extreme that Mr. Shack is paid-to-push it, and even I am now saying that imagery manipulation wasn't done to an extent to substantiate the "no planes theory." But it was done. [Think of the helicopter shot that has four versions, one involving nothing, one involving an orb, one involving pixels of a plane, and one that masks the background and does something completely whacked.]
And just as important as the few cases of proven imagery manipulation are the cases of proven media foreknowledge via miraculous pans, zooms, and focuses.
Of course this doesn’t change my views as per Shack or Woods... Nukes, Spacebeams, and Image Fakery – OH MY.
I ain't married to either one, so could easily siddle on over and adopt your views of Mr. Shack and Dr. Wood [if I haven't already.] But that ain't gonna stop me from mining, refining, and re-purposings those dang nabbit nuggets of truth.
Señor El Once : wish to expound upon these issues
Dear Señor Rogue,
You wrote:
If you wish to expound upon these issues, be my guest.
That is mighty gracious of you! Don't mind at all if I do. Thank you very much!
I do not dispute your numbers Señor — I dispute the frame you put them in.
How about you enlighten us as to your framing versus your interpretation of my framing. Or better yet. Skip your interpretation of my framing, because it'll be wrong and it'll just be fodder for me to knock about and torch.
But please, do tell. What is your framing involving nano-thermite in combination with various sundry incendiaries and plastic explosives?
How is it that this limbo-ed under the low-water mark decimal level confidently used by NIST and Dr. Sunder from lots of recordings to "debunk" their usage?
Let's be gracious and say quantities were sufficient to achieve the spectacular pulverization of the towers. By jove, what configuration and massively additional quantities were their salted remnants placed in that could account for:
(a) an excessively long hot-spot durations yet with only four notable large spikes [according to Kevin Ryan] and
(b) radiation
(1) that was measured and reported -- albeit probably with some suppression of actual findings --,
(2) that necessitated a nuclear scientist within the 9/11TM accept such radiation reports unchallenged as well as introduce his own scientific slight-of-hand, and
(3) that undoubtedly contributed to 1st responder ailments very similar to that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors?
These are clues that my understanding of your framing leave out. Gerrymander that frame, Señor Rogue, to include them. While you're at it, you can make an ugly non-symmetrical addition to your frame for just the images of vehicle destruction, minus any commentary she might have [that I admit can sometimes be misleading if not wrong] from Dr. Wood's website.
Is that your wont Señor? To put thermite in a hose and calculate the ‘burn time’ yet again?
You say that you don't dispute my numbers, yet my numbers and explanation seem to inspire very little waffling or repairing of your framing. You chide me for having been chumped four years as an on-/off-champion of NPT. How many more years have you been chumped by nano-thermite and conventional means to stop looking for ANYTHING ELSE that could explain the evidence?
You dismiss too easily the exercise of packing into an imaginary garden hose any combination or configuration conceivable of super-duper thermite, various sundry incendiaries, and plastic explosives. You see, these REMNANT elements could not just be placed in a pile under the rubble; their burn-rate would consume them almost immediately. Such remnant quantities from the destruction would have to be distributed in a particular fuse-like way, not just willy-nilly, or they would have to be fed into the hot-spot [at > 3000 fps] to account for the localized heat and duration of the hot-spots.
The back-of-envelope calculations into the length of such an ideal imaginary garden hose should be OPENING YOUR EYES and HAVE YOU QUESTIONING what other energy sources explain the hot-spots, before your boojie woojie high school chemistry from the Kennedy & Johnson eras has you playing with cross-sectional area of the imaginary garden hose that, when multiplied by the hose length, helps you determine volume and then weight of such massively ginormous ADDITIONAL REMNANT MATERIAL above and beyond that needed for pulverization.
Dr. Wood's textbook is propped up and used as a symbol for objectivity. I neither know nor care whether it contains definitive 9/11 answers. I do know that it contains evidence unaddressed by your framing and that of most of the coopted 911TM. We should stand on her shoulders to help us look outside the box of all that we were told or steered into believing.
Good Gawd man, truth ain't going to go away just because yet again you avoid the necessary change in thought.
You want to fix the world from how they have been playing us for generations? Shock-and-awe, baby! When we finally see (and can convey to others) the extent with which super-secret high-tech weaponry from our own arsenals were used against us and connect that with how they coordinated their lying to us and with all of the machinations about which fringe websites have been crying regarding FEMA camps, Constitution shredding, foreign soldiers on our soil, etc. ... Maybe we will have a chance to save both our Republic and the human race.
Señor El Once : no obligation to handle me
Dear Señor Rogue,
When you consider how you should handle me henceforth, recognize that you are under no obligation to handle me. It isn't your blog. It isn't your place. [Unless that is your assignment and your agenda.]
Take a lesson from how I handle A. Wright: ignore me.
In fact, that you engage A. Wright at all [after being told not to and after recognizing for yourself his nature] becomes a data point fitting into a trend line. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to build your legend as a 9/11 Truther.
I find agreeable your overall contributions to the forum but with these three exceptions.
[1] Your frequency of posting, sometimes with multiple postings one-after-the-other with nary a soul engaging you to merit the 2nd or nth additional posting. Obviously, you're too hasty with your replies and not providing enough contemplative thought to your responses if you must constantly come back with additional postings of the nature: "And one more thing I forgot, Señor..." It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to flood the forum and become your personal playground.
[2] Your reply postings that are not made close to the source and are instead top-level. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to screw up the readability of the discussion and to make it difficult for lurker readers, particularly when the subject matter is important [like addressing appropriately the energy questions of 9/11].
[3] The vast majority of your postings to me, which refuse to acknowledge nuggets of truth and instead are sweeping “bla bla bla bla bla…” infinitum dismal carousels. It isn't your place to dismiss me either. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to steer the lurker truth seekers from seeking it beyond.
Your objectivity is being tested, as is your open-mindedness. And you are failing.
Super duper nano-thermite versus Dr. Wood's textbook stretches you beyond your limits, particularly when both have issues despite both having truth.
If I am indeed so tiresome, ignore me. Please. For both our sakes. Ignore me. Follow through, old man! Leave me alone.
Señor El Once : consider participating
Dear Señor Rogue,
I'm hoping that when Mr. McKee gets a Dr. Wood article posted, you will consider participating [with your typical contemplative postings, less flooding, more attention to replying at the proper level, and no lame "bla bla bla bla bla... infinitum dismal carousels."]
If I am the commentator being referenced with regards to you "having an agreement to no longer respond to," allow me to repeat what I think you might be referring to:
If I [Señor El Once] am indeed so tiresome, ignore me. Please.
The operative phrase is: "If I am indeed so tiresome."
Thus, if I am not [so tiresome] at some point in time on some thread on some topic, response postings from you cannot be held in breech of the agreement.
And more good news for you is that another vacation [from Truth & Shadows] for me is coming up from 5/26 until 6/4 where I'll have probably have less [opportunity and desire for] access to the internet in the cowboy West than I did in March in South America.
Meanwhile, may your withdrawal from posting responses to me [between now and to the end of my up-and-coming absence] be happy and joyous!
[Just remember to keep the flooding in check and reply at the proper level.]
Señor El Once : an agenda that has been in effect for centuries
Dear Mr. Rogue,
That was one of several mighty fine postings and most agreeable. I like this passage:
There is an agenda that has been in effect for centuries that is now close to fruition. It is hidden in plain sight, it is only the credulity of a herd-like race that cannot see what is before their very eyes.
Sadly so.
If this was a population of serious, thinking people, they would have known long before 9/11 that the so-called government is nothing but a criminal syndicate fronting for a global hierarchy headed by the international banking cabal – that the Constitution has been dead since the 1930s, that the executive branch rules by fiat and that there is NO United States of America, but only Regions designated and ruled by decree.
One could argue that the Constitution was dead before 1930. Like in 1913 or so when they shoved the Federal Reserve and the income tax on us. Or like in the late 1800's when they deemed corporations as individuals. In that same earlier time-frame is when the President of the United States changed from his role being responsible to the United States citizens into being the executive officer of CORP. USA -- a corporation with job titles parallel to supposed elected public officials -- and thus being responsible to its shareholders -- the elite moneyed banking types.
Because the source is no longer available, here's a re-publish of an article on the subject: Critical History - The U.S. is a CORPORATION
This being said, you were being a little hard on Mr. Hufferd. I find his postings also agreeable, even when he says:
We have to make our case to the larger public. And the [psychopathic] enemy/system, our enemy, is making theirs by greater means and without scruples. ... We’ve got to defeat them by making them play OUR game — one of reason and science and impressing the jury with our EVIDENCE, not our ability (far inferior) to gage fight.
Our game is... to care. Our game is what Mr. Rogue says:
Why do I care? Why do I seek the truth and argue for it? Simply because it IS the truth and it is my assumed responsibility as a lucid thinking individual to seek, grasp, and speak such truths.
Señor El Once : starting seed for an article on Dr. Judy Wood
{The following was proposed as a starting seed for an article on Dr. Judy Wood. Mr. McKee could use any or all of it. What he didn't use would probably be re-purposed by me later in the resulting discussion.}
The roots of government-controlled messaging are deep, but have been a prominent feature of U.S. Government actions for well over a decade. A more recent embodiment of this is a 2008 Harvard paper co-written by Cass Sunstein now in the Obama administration who proposed that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-"independent" advocates to "cognitively infiltrate" online groups and websites - as well as other activist groups - which advocate views that Sunstein deems "false conspiracy theories" about the Government.
When we consider how the 9/11 Truth Movement (9/11TM) has parsed and analyzed to hairsplitting detail just about everything ever written about 9/11, it becomes a rather obvious flag when that doesn't happen, or when closer inspection reveals that the analysis is woefully incomplete, writes off the source too quickly as being "crazy, loony, nutty" and disinformation, and passes judgment based on second- or third-hand sources.
Assuming that the 9/11TM has such Sunstein infiltration, then fitting well into the profile of government-controlled messaging would be the rabid way in which Dr. Judy Wood and her work are denounced as "crazy, loony, nutty" and with crass discouragement from serious study, to the point of banning participants from forums when they bring up Dr. Wood's work in a favorable light, or not allowing such discussions to happen in the first place. Despite many instances where Dr. Wood's research was discussed rationally on Truth & Shadows, relatively new tag-teaming participants disruptively argue for "separation and containment" [e.g., under this very article.]
Dr. Wood published in 2010 her textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?". It is 2012, and where are the detailed good, bad, and ugly book reviews from respected 9/11 scholars? Particularly noteworthy are all of the attempts at book reports without having read it. In their attempts to shut down relevant commentary inspired by her book, they cite articles that pre-date the book and that thus have no accurate knowledge of exactly what would be in the book.
Paraphrased from Hamlet: "Me thinketh thou doth protest too much."
Last year in a pay-it-forward fashion to get various 9/11 leaders or worthy debate opponents over "kooky, loony, nutty" mental obstacles that otherwise prevented them from acquiring Dr. Wood's textbook, Señor El Once offered to purchase them a copy in exchange for a fair and objective reading and "the good, the bad, and the ugly." Little did he know that the very act of accepting or declining such an offer would prove to be an early test of their objectivity and a hint of their agenda.
- Mr. Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll Forums: "I decline your gracious offer... It's a moral thing. And based on principles."
- Mr. Simon Shack of September Clues: "I will respectfully decline your offer - out of intellectual honesty."
- Mr. LeftWright of 9/11 Blogger was sent the book, but after confirming receipt has communicated to the gift-giver not a single word, let alone a good, bad, and ugly assessment, despite pings every other month for about half a year: "How's the book report coming?"
- Mr. David Chandler upon receiving the book gave these first impressions: "Heavy book. Heavy pages. Extravagant use of color. Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." He goes on to say: "There's not a whole lot I agree with. I haven't gotten that far yet." Six months later when prodded for a more detailed good, bad, and ugly review, he admits that he started but didn't finish the book because he had "better things to do with his time" [e.g., the anti-CIT paper co-authored with Frank Legge.]
- Mr. Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage, and Gregg Roberts of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth wrote FAQ #3: What's Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis? that did not reference anything from Dr. Wood's textbook [which the authors probably don't have], misrepresents and misframes her work, and consumes half its space promoting nano-thermite [that has its own crippling issues.] The closest Señor El Once was able to come to contacting these authors directly was Mr. Cole relaying through his gatekeeper (Mr. Chandler): "Don't even waste time responding." Mr. Chandler elaborated: "Jon Cole and I concur that we consider Judy Wood to be a distraction, a disruption, and one who is promoting theories that are unsupported by evidence and transparently false. We have no interest in discussing her work further."
For the sake of brevity, many other data points clustering around the above trend line are not provided. The trend line is, however, that Dr. Wood and her work should be avoided and need to be marginalized before and to prevent others from objectively reviewing its content and from judging independently what is applicable and what is not.
Do not let the tenor of the article give you the wrong impression. Dr. Wood's work (website and textbook) are not without error and most assuredly do contain disinformation. The damning question for her detractors is: "Specifically where?" The reason it is so damning is the remainder, that portion that can't be definitely pegged as disinfo and is in fact true or simply evidence that no other conspiracy-theory-du-jour has addressed.
[Disclaimer: Neither Mr. McKee nor Señor El Once have any association with Dr. Wood or her textbook, and receive no financial benefit.]
What is Señor El Once's assessment of Dr. Wood's textbook?
The text and analysis of the first half are solid. Great new ways to debunk the official govt conspiracy theory with physics. Throughout the book, its 500 color images in the larger (7"x10") format with tables and maps to correlate the views of destruction alone secure the value of this book in your 9/11 library even before reading the text. They put into perspective the totality of the destruction for those of us who have never been to NYC.
Before I was half way through, I was recommending the book reasoning that if the second half unraveled into sweet-as-honey distracting disinformation, we'll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our grandchildren how our generation was manipulated and played.
The books strengths are also its weaknesses: each chapter stands (or falls) pretty much on its own. The book presents concepts and very few hypotheses regarding applicability of concepts to 9/11. No concluding or summary chapters tie the individual chapters together or define a definitive hypothesis about "This was how they pulled off 9/11."
After my first reading, other than a few tiny errors carried over from her website and many broken URL references [that she has no control over], I found no major issues or disinfo flags except my own disappointment that this crafty work had no definitive 9/11 conclusions.
Having had a year to digest Dr. Wood's textbook, I can more readily see the major hurdles for both supporters and detractors. Hurdle one is validity of a concept, which is a high one for detractors to overcome and to prove invalid or bogus science. Hurdle two is applicability of a concept to 9/11, which ends up being a high one for supporters.
[Unfounded speculation:] The inclusion of one or two of the concepts have more the appearance of a "get out of assassination free" card, ala "include these chapters that make you look bat-shit crazy, or else." So life-loving Dr. Wood's publishes them, but in a crafty trick (a) doesn't draw conclusions and (b) emphasizes the true importance of her book: evidence.
If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you. Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic.
~ Dr. Judy Wood
Indeed, much of her evidence is under-represented and largely unexplained by other 9/11 theories including the official one. In addition, before dismissing a concept as being scientifically valid but likely inapplicable to 9/11, remember to consider the totality of the WTC destruction and that what might seem inapplicable to WTC-1, WTC-2, or WTC-7 might not be so farfetched as contributing to the demise of other individual WTC buildings.
Should a prerequisite for the discussion be that the participant has the "Where Did The Towers Go?" textbook from Dr. Wood? Many reasons could be cited for considering this requirement, such as:
- If we're going to evaluate Dr. Wood's work, it should be her latest efforts.
- Dr. Wood's textbook pulls in the essential points from her website, presents it more clearly, and also has concepts that are not on her website.
- The pictures, maps, and tables that correlate pictures to views marked on the maps is worth the $44 price of the textbook by itself; it is not a wasted purchase for any serious researcher of 9/11.
- Nothing is more obnoxious than the book report by the wanna-be book reviewer who has never even peered into the crack of Dr. Wood's textbook.
Acquiring a copy of Dr. Wood's textbook (purchasing or borrowing from your public library) could thus be considered a test of your objectivity.
It is not being made a requirement but with this caveat: those attempting to give dismissive book reviews without having read the book and/or by using material pre-dating her book (e.g., Dr. Jenkins) can expect Señor El Once's copy to come thunking down upon their heads ruthlessly.
Three of the reasons for not making possession of the book a requirement are that:
(1) The truly relevant information (e.g., pictorial evidence, massive energy requirements of pulverization, other mechanisms of destruction) is available from her website.
(2) Objective reviewers will see aspects of her work that can be built upon and taken new directions, as well as aspects of her work that may be an irrelevant distraction (e.g., Hutchison Effect, free energy from space.)
(3) The book and website will have served their purpose by getting readers to consider how her evidence might better fit into other theories and think outside the "consensus" box on what caused the destruction of the WTC complex.
No comments:
Post a Comment