Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 3: Salvage and Keep In Play

---

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : salvage and keep in play

2012-04-13

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.

I will no longer advocate NPT; I concede

May 3, 2012 at 12:20 pm

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.

Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 2: Elephant Talk

---

Hide All / Expand All

---

I have to admit that I'm running out 9/11 steam. The OKC video put a hole in my boiler. Videos on Bernay, marketing (e.g., propoganda), the manipulation of the masses, and the stupidity of the masses has me shaking my hairless head. I'm especially annoyed at how 9/11 and Al-quada still make hay for shitty foreign and domestic policies. Appreciation of the good and true has always been my guide. I'm dumbfounded by how the lies seem "gooder" and "truer" even after being exposed as being way too good to be true. Nothing like the current Republican circus to shed light on it from a different direction.

The following is Part 2 of a discussion that took place on Truth & Shadows. It collects mostly my words and enough of my opponent's words to provide context. Certain postings from here may be extracted and re-posted individually.

the sucking sound is the vacuum left by the things swepted off of the table

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : grazing on dirt

2012-04-01

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:

I do not buy any of your chump whack, “No-Planes”, “Digital Fakery” or the Judy Wood–Morgan Reynolds woowoo – space beams or nukes. None of it.

You are absolutely amazing in how your religious 9/11 views keep you locked in your pasture grazing on dirt and in how you apply the same tricks for which you condemn Mr. Shack: the old ploy "false in one, false in all."

Can you hear the sucking sound? That's the vacuum left by the things you've swepted off of the table so haphazardly.

Your nano-thermite sacred cow has been slaughtered. Not that it doesn't have some juicy meat to be roasted in the form of the four energetic spikes that happened during the many week long hot-spot duration as presented in Kevin Ryan's paper and what dust samples reveal. But the 884k mile long imaginary garden hose packed with (relatively) slow burning incendiaries mixed with nano-thermite to account for the duration of just one hot-spot keeps it coiled at your feet to be tripped over: "Duh, Occam Razor says this is way too ginormously much and thus less and less likely to be the primary destructive mechanism.".

Even turning to Frank Legge (and others?) hasn't permitted nano-thermite to solve Occam Razor that pesky hot-spot duration.

Another energy source and destructive mechanisms must be sought.

And you continue to ridicule Dr. Wood's textbook from that ancient stronghold of not owning it, not borrowing it, and not having read it?

Come to think of it, your blanket condemnation of September Clues 1-9 and A-H is rather weak as well. You've cherry picked some low hanging fruit that "the skunk and his gopher" poorly defended (on purpose?) for you to smash and even get rational me stomping on.

Yet a deeper episode-by-episode good, bad, & ugly review of September Clues is just as glaringly absent as the chapter-by-chapter good, bad, & ugly book report on Dr. Wood's book. From you. From any leader within the truth movement.

The sucking vacuum and your inability to fill the void, even with the help of others (Dr. Jones, Mr. Legge), is made worse by your failure to acknowledge nuggets of Truth and the importance & validity of searching for them in (dis)information.

Kevin Ryan's nuggets of truth

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : Kevin Ryan's nuggets of truth

2012-03-23

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Thank you for providing the link to the Kevin Ryan document. I have not finished it reading word-for-word, but in the opening pages it provides nuggets of truth.

You write:

I have to admit Señor El Once, that I am still baffled that you cannot seem to imagine this creeping wandering fires scenario [mainly chemical] in this chaotic structure of the pile.

Now that you corner my imagination into the premise of a creeping, wandering fires scenario, let me empty your baffles by stating I can indeed imagine them and suspect that this was the nature of at least part of what was observed.

Admittedly, information gathered in my mind regarding the hot-spots and testimonies has been sketchy. Kevin Ryan does a good job of bringing them together.

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.
* Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.
* Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.
* Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and
* A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).
The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants. Apart from the extensive but failed efforts to extinguish the fires, there are several other physical indicators of the presence of energetic chemical reactions in the rubble at GZ. These include the following.
1. Photographs and witness testimony evidencing molten metal and explosions accompanied by white dust clouds (Jones 2006; Meyerowitz 2006; PBS 2002).
2. Extremely high temperatures in the fires at the WTC (Jones et al. 2008a).
3. Unusual spikes in volatile organic chemical (VOC) emissions, suggesting abrupt, violent fires on specific dates.
4. Unusual species in the environmental monitoring data, also corresponding to specific dates.
Explosions followed by white dust clouds, and molten metal at GZ, are of particular interest in this analysis. A white dust cloud is one of the products of the thermite reaction. The white dust in this case is aluminum oxide, released from the extremely exothermic reaction between aluminum and iron oxide. The other product of the thermite reaction is molten iron. These facts, coupled with evidence for extremely high temperatures at the WTC, suggest that investigators should examine the potential for such pyrotechnic materials at the WTC. The environmental data described below give more compelling evidence to support such an inquiry.

In the lengthy quote above, what stands out to me is "such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials." I agree that compared to "a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel" chemical energetic materials provide a better explanation, particularly for the noted spikes.

However, are chemical energetic materials the only explanation or the only cause of the four bullet points and #1 & #2?

Was any other source of energy at work under the rubble that would occassionally touch off remnant chemical energetic materials and cause their spike?

champion September Clues and clues forum research in a reasonable manner

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : champion September Clues and clues forum research in a reasonable manner

2012-03-08

Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

I hope that you will continue to champion September Clues and clues forum research, but please do it in a reasonable manner.

Mr. HybridRogue1 said it quite well:

“Nothing” and “Everything” are quite broad brushes... MOST of what was shown of the scene in NY that day is actual real video footage.

Mr. OneBornFree, you wrote a FACT that isn't:

FACT: All of the tower destruct sequences aired on TV on 9/11 were pre-fabricated on computer, from start to finish [as was other incidental footage.] NOTHING, in any of them [i.e. sky, backgrounds, foregrounds, smoke, fires,trees, bridges, coastlines, people, WTC buildings, surrounding buildings, mini-explosions, shadows, birds, helicopters,sunlight etc. etc. ] in any of them is a reflection of the reality of that day.

The above description of fakery may have been exhibited in some sequences analyzed by the September Clues crew, but that sticky word "all" is just sitting there waiting like a big fat "I dare you" sign for one measely instance of nothing faked (e.g., being authentic) to bring down your argument. Until "all" is proven as pre-fabricated, some imagery will remain as being considered authentic and depicting the "essential reality."

I personally believe that start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images were the exception rather than the norm.

Rather, authentic imagery was passed through a media editing department. Such imagery was only manipulated or tweaked if it revealed destructive methods, like tell-tale flashes or other things that could be incriminating. Even the CGI planes crashing into the towers only inserted the requisite pixels to depict the plane, not model its crash physics.

The argument against start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images (for either the plane impacts or the tower demolitions) is very strong, because if it were such, the video manipulators would have fixed the physics-defying elements. Everything depicted could have been 100% physics-compliant and in agreement from each camera angle.

Take the plane crashes. IMHO the reason they weren't physics-compliant was that they had quasi-real-time footage of an explosion in the upper floors of the towers from various angles. They had to work quickly just to get plane pixels inserted, and these had errors with respect to inconsistent flight paths. They had no time to depict accurate crash physics.

Take the towers' destruction. IMHO the reason their footage weren't compliant with the explanations of pancakes or pile-drivers was that the real-world destructive mechanisms added too much energy and made them physics-defying with respect to explanations involving Newtonian gravitational collapses. They had too many camera angles depicting a real event, and their digital tweaking efforts were spent masking operation methods.

One would think with start-to-finish pre-fabricated computer images that at the very least the video manipulators could alter the WTC-7 footage to slow down its 100+ feet of gravitational acceleration. This they didn't do.

formulating convoluted and tiresome theories

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : formulating convoluted and tiresome theories

2012-03-06

Dear Mr. Shack,

I respect the greater part of your work. I'll gladly stand on your shoulders. But your legacy is not without its weaknesses.

I don't mind you casting Ronnie Raygun "distrust but verify" paraphrased dispersions on all 9/11 imagery. But the effort to do a taint-by-association clean sweep off of the table of all 9/11 imagery is disingenous. For the images and videos you've discovered artifacts of digital manipulation, awesome! Until the taint is found in all such media snippets and is also found conflicting with on-the-scene observers understanding of what the "essential reality" was, some imagery will remain on the table to inspire our thinking into the mechanisms of destruction.

A more glaring weakness is found hidden in the following passage from you:

I won’t name any names – so as not to “feed the trolls”, as they say – but the two insidious, hybrid & rogue señors rambling away incessantly on this comment box – formulating convoluted and tiresome theories regarding the WTC towers’ collapse physics – exemplify the sort of dreary, mind-numbing tactics the “9/11 gatekeeping movement” deploys to bore the wits out of everyone.

For the sake of discussion, let us assume that your understanding of the 9/11 media hoax onto the world is valid. If you could impose this understanding on the world, the effect (e.g., WTC destruction suggesting overkill amounts of energy) still needs a credible explanation into the cause. You try mightily to say that media effectively put a black-box around the cause to obscure and hide its true nature; all we know for sure is what went into the black-box and the effect that came out.

When you are pressed to "formulate convoluted and tiresome theories regarding the WTC towers’ collapse physics", the weak argument you and your forum reach towards is a traditional controlled demolition using standard explosives and incendiaries. You discount the physics and the energy levels required to achieve the effect, and how physics, chemistry, and math applied to your suggested cause ends up proving its inapplicability to account for effects (e.g., under-rubble hot-spots without oxygen burning for many weeks) before the implied massive quanties impacts logistics in terms of what could be pulled off in the several days that the bomb-sniffing dogs used for a pre-9/11 holiday. Who's a gatekeeper?

no longer in the milli-nuke camp of the Anonymous Physicist

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : mixing up principles

2012-03-05

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

You are correct that I am no longer in the milli-nuke camp of the Anonymous Physicist, but I hang out along its fringes. I'm not in that camp due to:

- Lack of nuke flashes.
- Lack of nuke blast wave going beyond the exterior walls of the tower.
- Lack of heat wave that would scortch not just cars, but paper and humans.
- Likelihood of milli-nuke fracticide.
- Anomalous radiation readings that don't match weapons.

Do you see the dichotomy here? “zero to low radiation nuke” but, “radioactive fragments”

You are mixing up principles here. Nukes have many aspects of their design that can be tweaked or dialed in, albeit with improvements to one aspect forcing trade-offs in other aspects. Designing a nuke for zero to low radiation is defined by the designer, whereby the type of that radiation is but one factor. Nukes can be designed to give off high levels of X radiation and low levels Y radiation, whereby X might be a type that disipates quickly.

Still, all nukes get their punch by nuclear material. Likewise the energy from nuclear reactors comes from nuclear material.

…these [radioactive fragments] are exactly what were not found – No ‘daughter’ elements detected. If the heat is due to ‘radioactivity’ then that is radiation. If there is radiation in quantity to cause large scale heat, that radiation would have a radioactive signature, and it would not be a “trace” signature – this amount of radiation would have killed those amongst it within hours, or days at most.

I disagree for several reasons.

First, we don't know exactly what was found, and we can't rule out nuclear fragments. What we do know is that military security dropped down upon the WTC complex with orders to prevent "unauthorized" pictures and whatnot. We also know that portions of the clean-up procedures resembled that of HazMat techniques: applying copious amounts of water, trucking in fresh dirt and spreading it out, and carting out this same dirt days later.

The heat isn't due to their radioactivity. The heat would be due to those radioactive fragments fizzling in a nuclear reaction.

Radioactive signatures were present, but as previously proven, they were anomalous and above "trace" levels. Trace levels would have been at or below 20 TU, while one WTC sample measured it at almost 1100 TU.

We have no reason to trust govt reports on radiation measurements. They are sketchy and incomplete. For that matter, it would be an easy task to issue "fake" radiation badges to first responders, so most wouldn't be the wiser.

Lest we forget, Mayor Bloomberg had a little jihad where he was trying to ban the use of Geiger Counters in NYC. What was that all about? Didn't want little independent investigators with Geiger Counters running around and sounding alarms regarding the true radiation measurements.

To your discussion of an EMP, it has errors. A nuke exploding an elevation would have an EMP that affects electronics. One exploding underground or within a building would have far less. EMP is line-of-sight, more or less. Its magnitude is dependent on distance. EMP is another one of those design factors along with radiation, blast wave, and heat wave that can be tweaked. Assuming a much smaller nuclear device and explosion from within the steel towers, the EMP effects could have been reduced dramaticly.

I speculate that the nuclear reactor(s) powering DEW device(s) may have radiated electrical-magnetic fields that the DEW devices snagged and re-purposed, if bad-ass power distribution cables weren't deployed to get energy to the DEW devices. Errant EM fields from the reactor slipping out through window slits may have caused the anomalous fire damage to vehicles.

Traces of tritiated water (HTO)?

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : agent trenchcoat exposing more than it should

2012-03-05

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Your agent trenchcoat is exposing more than it should.

Because you are championing super duper nano-thermite as the end-all-cure-all to the anomalous after-effects at WTC, you tell us what its burn-rate is. Take your time and use all of Spring Break if you have to.

You are correct that my presumption of the nano-thermite burn-rate being between 3,000 fps and 29,000 fps may be in error, and deliberately so. Its true burn-rate won't hurt the kernel of my argument in the least, I can assure you. Which way does that error go? Don't be shocked-and-awed by super duper nano-thermite having a burn-rate greater than 29,000 fps.

Do you know what a burn-rate faster than my low-ball 3,000 fps will mean? I didn't think so, so I will explain it for your atrophied science nuggets.

To simplify the math:
- I considered only one hot-spot. There were more.
- I truncated the burn duration to 4 weeks. It was longer in cases.
- I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w 3,000 fps burn-rate listed for common incendiaries. Nano-thermite is faster, and your homework might prove that it is even faster than the 3,000 fps to 29,000 fps range given in my googled source.

These simplifications provide a low estimate for the baseline on the ridiculousness of quantities of such materials needed to explain the duration of an under-rubble hot-spot. Packing such s-l-o-w burn-rate materials into an imaginary garden hose netted one some 884k miles long, which is u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e before translating its volume into material weight.

What happens to the length of the imaginary garden-hose when the material burn-rate is anything greater than the s-l-o-w burn-rate I deliberately chose? The required imaginary garden-hose gets longer. (Kind of like your nose, Mr. HybridRogue1, when you continue to make science-challenged arguments and split inconsequential hairs.)

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' Science

Hide All / Expand All

---

Señor El Once : science-challenged spin on a disinfo carousel

2012-03-02

The scientific critique of Dr. Jones' science has been provided several times. I'll repeat it most briefly both for new readers and scientific-wannabe's-but-aren't like yourself.

Dr. Jones wrote a paper based on blindly-accepted measurements of radiation at ground zero from govt sources and performs with it scientific slight of hand: (unvetted) radiation measurements did not match the radiation signature of three known nuclear weapon types, therefore he leaps to his conclusions that no nuclear weapons were used. Does he speculate about other nuclear sources and unknown nuclear weapons that could account for the (unvetted) radiation measurements? Nope. He lamented frequently about issues with other govt reports (e.g., timeliness, voracity), yet has no issue swallowing the one on radiation measurement?!

So that a vacuum isn't left in taking nukes off the table, Dr. Jones gets credit for discovering nano-thermite in the dust which can indeed burn very hot and without air, drawing its oxygen to burn from the chemical reaction.

The problem here is that neither Dr. Jones, nor Mr. Ryan, nor Mr. Cole, nor you bothered with "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to run numbers on nano-thermite's (or other incendiaries') burn-rate to estimate quantities required to account for the duration of hot-spots... because this suggests massive, totally unrealistic quantities. And when the science-challenge yeomen of 9/11 Truth run with it to explain features in the destruction that "boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves it cannot, he doesn't correct the record.

Nuggets of Clues

Hide All / Expand All

---

Herr der Elf : Red-meat for this forum

2012-02-19

by Herr der Elf February 19th, 2012, 3:00 am

To the gracious participants of the clues forum,

I respectfully ask your indulgence. I am "Herr der Elf" here, because it is easier to type than the "Señor El Once" I use over at Craig McKee's "Truth & Shadows blog" http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie.

I am the resident champion there of both September Clues and Dr. Wood, although I do it in an admittedly left- and back-handed manner.

I objectively review all that I can; I think for myself; I stand on the shoulders of others and mine, re-fine, and re-purpose nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

Disclaimer: I do not know Dr. Wood and have no association with her or her textbook; Mr. Shack I only know from cyberspace.

I have been in email contact with Mr. Shack and requested the assistance of him and the Clues Team. I am hoping that you could focus your digital-artifact-seeking-eyes on a select group of images acknowledged by everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement... but particularly by Dr. Judy Wood.

In preparation for that, Mr. Shack sent me some links to review, which includes this very thread (the middle link to CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE). From Mr. Shack:

simonshack wrote:My historical outlook concerning the Judy Wood character: THE KOOKIE CLUB:
viewtopic.php?p=2365280#p2365280

Here is why I believe the Ground Zero imagery cannot be trusted: OLIVER STONE'S RUBBLE FIELD:
viewtopic.php?p=2353367#p2353367

Here is why I believe that the entire pool of WTC collapse imagery is a fraud:
CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

Here is proof that the rubble imagery is also untrustworthy: FAKING THE RUBBLE
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489

And here is further proof of the same: THE HEROIC FIREFIGHTERS
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458

I'm sorry to have to ask you to spend time looking out all these links, but I reckon that this is a necessary requirement for anyone asking me to allow my forum to indulge in an umpteenth, circular debate of the technicalities of the WTC collapse - such as those infesting most 9/11 truth forums.

I have reviewed them (mostly). They all have merit. You have sold me on the updated "Ronnie Ray-Gun" paraphrase to distrust but verify when it comes to all 9/11 imagery.


Mr. Shack wrote:

simonshack wrote:I do believe most longtime Cluesforum members share my views about Judy Wood, i. e. - that her gatekeeping role is to uphold at all costs the credibility of the 9/11 imagery - as she specifically struggles to 'make some sense' of the physically impossible/ ridiculous visuals of the ("dustifying") tower collapses proposed by the media.

I disagree with this characterization of Dr. Wood's efforts. It can easily be proven wrong. If Dr. Wood's purpose was "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", then we would see all of the images that she collected re-used elsewhere. We see some, because the borrowing went from established 9/11 sources to Dr. Wood and everyone else. The more curious cases are the images that she borrows and nobody else does, like the anomalous damage to vehicles. These are avoided by the mainstream leaders of 9/11; these don't get an explanation in their versions of what happened.

The above paragraph takes nothing away from any of the discoveries of 9/11 image tainting and the possibility that tainted images made it into Dr. Wood's work (as well as everyone else's). It would be a case of Dr. Wood being duped, just like the world was duped.

In fact, it was the Anonymous Physicist who suggested that Dr. Wood's purpose was to take all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event and wrap it under some zany theme. (I use the term "nuclear event" to include potentially multiple milli-nuclear devices as well as nuclear and/or cold fusion reactors to power DEW devices.) Thus, Dr. Wood's purpose wouldn't be "to uphold... the credibility of the 9/11 imagery", but to garbage-in/garbage-out misinterpret the significance of what was depicted.

Mr. Shack, you write:

simonshack wrote:Is anyone going to tell Judy that she is looking at CGI imagery?
Needless to say, for any scientist to base a thesis on fake imagery... isn't very scientific at all!

To your first sentence: I don't have direct contact with Dr. Wood, but will mention it to those I think might.

To your second sentence: Very poor... no, "lame"... framing on your part. Did she know the images were tainted? The vast majority of the 9/11 truth movement are not suspecting image/video manipulation, so we should be gracious and give her the benefit of the doubt. Basing a scientific thesis on tainted information does indeed call the thesis into question; only after answering the "what did she know and when did she know it" questions can any sort of innocence or guilt be affixed to the scientist. So, please. Let us be courteous and mindful by separating the thesis from the scientist.