My Humble Critique of a Small Fraction of Dr. Jones' Excellent Legacy

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement

2012-02-14

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

It was not my intent to be a joker when I linked you between threads within this blog, so I am sorry if I left that impression. I just didn't want to bore the readers of two different threads with the same material that you claim to not having a hard time grasping, yet with really no indication that you do judging from your consistent malframing and skew.

I gave the summary of ~my~ humble critique of a small fraction of Dr. Jones' excellent work for the 9/11 Truth Movement, recognizing that the vast majority I have no issues with and applaud him for his legacy. My ire is localized. Dr. Jones, more so than any other individual or group outside or inside the 9/11 Truth Movement, takes speculation about 9/11 being a nuclear event out of the picture and fills its vacuum with nano-thermite.

- He refers to govt reports that say radiation of types X, Y, and Z were measured at certain levels. (Interesting that he condemns the govt for slow-walking and unscientific work in other 9/11 reports, yet he accepted this radiation report without question. Given the govt track record, these reports on radiation levels deserve further scrutiny.)

- He deduces that known nuclear weapons of type A, B, and C were not used, because the measured radiation types X, Y, and Z were at insufficient levels to match those known weapons. (Garbage in / Garbage out.)

- He concludes without more substantiation in a scientific slight-of-hand that no nuclear weapons were used, just because data didn't line up with publicly known nuclear weapons of type A, B, or C. What about potential nuclear weapons of type E, nuclear reactors of type F, or cold fusion type G?

- He stops any further speculation about what could have resulted in the anomalous measured radiation X, Y, and Z.

- He takes the anomalous radiation measurements off of the table through the scientific slight of hand of redefining "background levels" to be 55 times greater than their previous levels. Thus, measured radiation was at or below the new background level. (This comes from Dr. Ed Ward.)

- In the realm of nano-thermite, he lets the science-challenged yeomen like you extrapolate it to explain features in the destruction that it cannot. The support for nano-thermite being explosive enough (in reasonable quantities) to achieve pulverization is weak, but worse is its ability -- even in combination with other slow-burning incendiaries -- to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without unreasonably massive quantities of such.

- Dr. Jones is the one who publicly framed Dr. Wood's work as "beams from space" and "space beams." (From Mr. Andrew Johnson)

- Granted that many of us are reading historical exchanges between Dr. Jones and others for the first time and out of context on various web-sites. The impression I get from the language and tone from Dr. Jones sometimes uncharacteristically takes a negative tilt. He didn't shy from playing the disinfo card against others, and it wouldn't surprise me -- like the "space beam" taunts -- if we discover him pre-emptively doing so.

- Dr. Jones participation on behalf of the US govt in getting cold-fusion research shut down (at least as far as the public was concerned) for a couple of decades is noteworthy as well. (From Dr. Wood and Andrew Johnson.)

And I STILL have not come across a serious scientific critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. I even took off my black sunglasses to make sure I wasn’t missing any details.

The only things that DO exist originate with that stooge Greening, over at the JREF forums, where all is hi-fives and “yuk yuk ain’t we cute”.

Truth & Shadows and humble Maxwell's Silver Hammer might just change where such speculation is found on the internet via this very posting.

I have never spent significant time on JREF, and I think this is because they didn't approve my registration, so I couldn't participate. Reading what people link me to proves that JREF's "yuk yuk yuk" is well deserved and a blessing to us all, just like the Three Stoogies of old. Negative examples can have positive influences.

The Boojie Woojie High School Chemistry

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : the boojie woojie high school chemistry

2012-02-13

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I grasp probably better than you that "physical evidence for STILL unreacted thermates [existed] in the dust." That was never the issue. The issue was the starting quantities that can be calculated using "boojie woojie high school chemistry" to account for the observed side-effects (pulverization, hot-spots, and unreacted thermite) and that don't add up as being reasonable.

But first, I feel compelled to call you nasty names for this masterful yet totally erroneous yarn and insertion of words into my mouth:

I say that there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries – then you say, “you can’t have it both ways”…WTF? Yes I can, there is the probability of several types of explosives and incendiaries – it is NOT one or the other…mate.

You are the one who has been arguing as if nano-thermite was the end-all cure-all, "no need to go looking any further." Too bad "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves this wrong.

Now you're saying, "there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries." I agree with this probability being true, but not that these several types of explosives and incendiaries account for the observed side-effects as if they -- in combination -- were the primary mechanism and end-all cure-all. "The boojie woojie high school chemistry" proves you wrong... again.

When I said, "you can’t have it both ways", it referred to fast destructive energy of pulverization (fast burn rate) and excessively long burn periods (slow burn rate).

When you review "the boojie woojie high school chemistry" again, you'll see that I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate (3,300 fps) for common explosives and indendiaries used in such demolitions. It is presumed that nano-thermite itself has a burn-rate somewhere in this range:

3,000 fps < nano-thermite burn-rate < 29,000 fps

By chosing the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate, "the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries" is taken into consideration and we end up with a s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario.

"The boojie woojie high school science" had us pack the combination of explosives into a garden hose with a square cross-section to simplify the math. Ignition was started at one end. The question was: How long is the garden hose in order for the fire to burn 4 weeks? Some 882,000 miles.

This estimate is LOW. (a) It was only one hot-spot, not many. (b) Crank up the burn rate to match the average of nano-thermite and any variety of exposives and incendiaries used in the mix, you increase the length of the garden hose by many orders of magnitude.

Because the garden hose was imaginary, we can ignore its weight. We cannot ignore the weight of the massive quantities of nano-thermite (or combination of other materials) that were packed into this volume. This is left as an exercise for you to calculate.

I'll give you a hint: if 882,000 miles of garden hose seems obscenely large and unrealistic to account for just one hot-spot and not even multiple hot-spots, not even the actual many weeks of burning, not even what remained unreacted, and not even what was consumed already in the pulverization, then you will begin to understand how "boojie woojie high school science" disproves the hypothesis that fast-burning nano-thermite (super duper or otherwise or any combination thereof) can be the primary destructive mechanism for everything observed at the WTC.


Let that sink in.


Another energy source for the hot-spots must be sought.


Don't you get it?

Thus the nano-thermite sacred cow gets slaughtered.


So, we need to come up with a new hypothesis to explain side-effects of pulverization and duration of hot-spots.

Dr. Wood does a great job of nudging people to think outside the box. Alas, to prove that I'm not blindly following Dr. Wood and am thinking for myself, I point out a yet another weak area in her textbook. But let me start with Dr. Jones.

Dr. Jones rules out nukes of type X, Y, or Z, because the radiation signature at ground zero didn't match them. Dr. Jones erroneously extrapolated his findings of the destructive mechanism not being "nukes of type X, Y, or Z" to being "no nukes at all." He did not speculate into "nukes of type W" or "nuclear generators" that could account for the anomalous radiation measurements.

Dr. Wood ruled out "deep underground nukes", because of the bathtub not being damaged. Dr. Wood introduces the concept of "separation" of the observable destructive cutting edge from its energy source, which she does with the concepts of free energy and possibly tapping into the energy of Hurricane Erin. She does not go into evidence of radiation measurements that required Dr. Jones' dog-and-pony show on the subject to begin with. Dr. Wood did not entertain the concept of a milli-nuclear generator being the source of energy for whatever was the destructive cutting edge (e.g., DEW). She tries to caste doubt that there were even hot-spots, referring to the images of hydraulic machines picking up glowing pieces of metal, saying "all that glows is not necessarily hot, and the hydraulics would fail if such hot-spots were present."

Enter Mr. Shack, who doesn't want to go into Dr. Wood's work at all, saying that it is based on tainted images. Expanding upon his point, if the image of the hydraulic machine picking up a glowing piece of metal were a faked digital representation (used by both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood), ironically Dr. Wood's statement of "all that glows [in digital imagery] is not necessarily hot" remains truthful, although the efforts to side-line hot-spots is not.

Ignorant about Propellants and Explosives

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives

2011-02-11

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

We probably both fall into the category of being ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives.

Although I disbelieve that super duper nano-thermite has the explosive potential to pulverize the contents of the tower as observed on 9/11, quite possibly you'll find examples and not just hearsay that it is so. Doesn't matter, because the more effort you put into proving the explosive energy of nano-thermite, the more you prove that super duper nano-thermite could not account for the hot-spots that burned for many weeks.

Physics in this matter says that you can't have it both ways. You can't have nano-thermite accounting for pulverization ~AND~ the many week duration of hot-spots.

You wrote:

[T]hese materials found in the surface dust were ‘unreacted’…if there are unreacted incendiaries in the surface materials, it is more than reasonable to presume they are in the pile and buried with the debris – this being the case there is a source for a continued burn, which most certainly would account for the furnace effects reported by witnesses.

To put it nicely, you are talking through your hat and exposing your weak pedigree in the area of science, math, and physics.

From Dr. Ed Ward:

The velocity of instantaneous combustion has been measured for most explosives and is referred to as the detonation velocity of the explosive. Detonation velocities of high explosives range from approximately 3,300 feet per second (fps) to over 29,900 fps. To bring this speed down to our terms - If we took a five-mile length of garden hose and filled it in with a high explosive and then detonated one end of the hose, it would only take one second for the chemical reaction to reach the other end.
http://www.rense.com/general77/geddno.htm

What is the burn-rate or detonation velocity of super duper nano-thermite? I don't know.

What I do know is that hot-spots burned for many weeks (more than 4.) 4 weeks = 28 days = 392 hours = 23,520 minutes = 1,411,200 seconds. For the sake of discussion, let's contemplate one hot-spot, use a slow burn rate of 3,300 feet per second, and just 4 weeks. Thus, for this imaginary explosive we would need a garden hose 4,656,960,000 feet long (or approximately 882,000 miles). You can tweak the numbers to make them specific to nano-thermite with the energy to pulverize content, but to account for the duration of the hot-spot you'll get a garden hose even longer that 882,000 miles.

Ignoring the weight of the hose itself and assuming 1/2 diameter hose, how much explosive material in kilograms would be in such? Massive amounts.

Not just massive amounts. Unreasonable amounts.

Have the nuclear hot-spots in Japan as a result of the 2011-03-11 action (earthquake, tidal wave, etc.) been put out? I don't know. What I do know is that nuclear hot-spots comes closer to answering the observed outcome of 9/11 than super duper nano-thermite.

Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1, other energy sources and destructive mechanisms for 9/11 much be sought.

You parking yourself and the discussion at nano-thermite? Expose either your ignorance or your agenda.

The same might be said about your attacks on video fakery. I don't know what you did at Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention, but given that they earn their profits by making us believe fake things are real on the telly -- just like we're saying much of 9/11 were fake things that looked almost real on the telly --, then...

Kudos, Mr. HybridRogue1. I consider you on the A-team of the NSA Q-Group, which is why, as you say, I'll never persuade you on this topic.

Temper Your Enthusiasm for Dr. Wood's Textbook

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : temper your enthusiasm

2012-02-12

Dear Mr. Goldstein,

I caution you to temper your enthusiasm for all evidence and concepts brought to light by Dr. Wood's textbook. Not all of them are applicable to 9/11. And Mr. Shack has unlocked how some potential deceit may have been introduced into that wonderful book in the form of tainted pictures. Some of it may also be in how the damage was interpretted. Certainly, a tainted image or two could lead one to the wrong conclusion, or lead you away from a different but worthy conclusion.

Case in point, you wrote:

How would any of the before mentioned make vehicle engine blocks disappear leaving gas tanks intact? Everything that goes boom is not a bomb. Everything that glows is not hot. There was no evidence of high heat. There was no “debris pile” there was a small debris field.

Dr. Wood has in the past presented images of the front of a fire engine that seemed to have a melted engine block and made this strong inference. I discovered that this older style fire engine had its engine set back such that access was obtained through the cab. So the reason the picture shows a wilted grill and front-end with no engine in sight is because the motor is much further back from the front bumper and you can't see it. Just correcting the record on this image; other melted engines and anomalous burn patterns remain.

A place where I'm deviating from Dr. Wood is her chapter on there being no evidence of high heat. One of her valid arguments was the hydraulics of the escavation equipment failing if such high heat existed, like in the one of the crane pulling out a piece of seemingly glowing hot material.

With absolutely no substantiation to back me up (yet) I suspect that this particular image may be discovered in the category of being tainted. So it is ironic that you would bring up the tidbit from Dr. Wood: "Everything that glows is not hot." This is especially true when thinking digital special effects and how to taint an image.

Although I am dinging an aspect or two from Dr. Wood's work, I think of it more as "correcting the record" ~or~ "showing how this thinking reader is coming to his own conclusions." Dr. Wood's work are the shoulders I stand on.

The rubble pile had hot-spots that burned for many weeks at high temperatures. I believe this more closely resembles unspent but fizzling nuclear material. That doesn't have to mean that the destructive mechanisms were milli-nuclear bombs (exclusively or at all). It could have been a milli-nuclear generator powering something else, like a DEW mounted to the infrastructure of the towers and later became famously known as "the spire." Let us not forget that radiation was measured, and the good Dr. Jones had to try to explain it away.

A scene from the Monty Python movie "The Life of Brian" had Brian being chased by the multitude who mistook him for being one of their contemporaries, Jesus H. Christ. Brian loses a sandal and stumbles into a gord seller's stand. The rabid followers pick up his sandal and say: "Look! The Sandal that he wore. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the Sandal." But another group points to the gord that Brian stumbled into. "Look! The gord that he touched. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the gord" "No, the Sandal! Follow the Sandal!" "No, follow the gord!" "No, the Sandal!" "No, the Gord!"

Mr. Goldstein, let us not be like these all too familiar religious zealots when discussing 9/11 and limiting ourselves to one destructive mechanism. The joke is probably on us that they used all mechanisms that anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement ever made a half-hearted case for. They foist purposely mutually exclusive suggestions at us: "It was spire-based DEW!" "It was milli-nuclear devices!" "It was super duper nano-thermite!" "It was space-based DEW!" "It was conventional explosives!" "No, sheeple! It was all of the above [... to some meaure, certainly when talking the WTC complex as a whole]!"

However, of the above, 9/11 being a nuclear event in any way is the reason the OCT PR is so fervent in its misguiding efforts. Dr. Wood's textbook rightfully questions the energy requirements of pulverization, and thus gives us one of many nuggets of truth.

Distrust but Verify

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : Distrust but Verify

2012-02-10 at 12:31 pm

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

I agree with your statements:

Indeed, the Razor can be more or less abused. However there is the point of complexity, and that as it applies to the proposition that all of the visual imagery from 9/11 is digitally manufactured. The idea that this is even remotely possible is staggering. We are not simply dealing with TV footage, we are dealing with footage from people from many angles and POVs that never appeared on TV, but were subsequently put up on You Tube. In other words we are dealing with unmanageable complexity.

Whereas Mr. Shack provides us many nuggets of truth in his efforts, you have stumbled upon some dross of disinformation in his postings, because it is he himself who wants us -- nudges us, urges us -- to extrapolate and hold up all 9/11 footage and imagery as products of digital manipulation and thus unreal. In particular, his zany responses seem to target Dr. Wood, because he seems to

not want

to review Dr. Wood's textbook "out of intellectual honesty"; he implies that because her textbook stands upon the shoulders of tainted images, it follows the computer principle of "garbage in / garbage out."

I take the paraphrased "Ronald Ray-Gun" (pun intended) approach: "Distrust but verify."

Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

And I would add that it is ludicrous to propose that such digital fakery would be done which proves the towers exploded – rather than ‘collapsing’ into their footsteps and the mantra went. If such footage was computer generated it would have made more sense to show a ‘gravity’ driven collapse – which these images clearly do not.

Agreed. This ends up being another area where potentially the dross of disinformation in Mr. Shack's work is visible.

Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

There is the point of whether Shack actually proves anything with his side by side expositions. You feel that he does. I don’t see that. He claims never to have been debunked. Perhaps those who might have the expertise to do so see it as so ludicrous that it is a waste of time to take it serious enough to do so {?}

No. Allow me to clarify. I feel Mr. Shack has made a convincing case that some level of digital manipulation occurred. It is highly conceivable FOR THE INSTANCES HE DOCUMENTED. I do NOT believe Mr. Shack has by any means taken all imagery off of the table as being fake products; he's simply raised the "distrust but verify" flag.

As was stated in the "When did they know?" thread [that Mr. McKee had to post for me, because the blog was inexplicably not letting me post anything], if all of the footage are products of digital faking, they should have at least gotten the collapse footage closer to Hollywood standards for being real and in agreement with Newtonian physics.


Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

As far as “energy requirements” Dr. Wood has a problem with such as well. Where does the energy come from that she claims drives this unknown weapon? See the article by Dr. Jenkins on the energy requirements for such a weapon, and the problems of hiding the other atmospheric effects that would need be present in their use.

Thank you for that excellent segue, Mr. HybridRogue1, and such an accurate & keen eye you have for Dr. Wood's problem. It should be pointed out that Dr. Wood's textbook only hints at what the energy sources could be. One option was free energy from Hurricane Erin. Another option could be cold fusion nuclear "generators" (my term) which then supposedly yields Hutchison side-effects. I have high hopes that Mr. Shack's crack team will view some of those side-effect images (e.g., fireman stepping right over a localized fire on one end of some aluminum cladding that miraculously wasn't burning any of the paper that littered the street) and discover the artifacts of digial manipulation.

My speculation was milli-nuclear generators powered the DEW devices due to the hot-spots that satillites captured and burned for many weeks.

Always bringing out the Dr. Jenkins, eh, Mr. HybridRogue1. (Do you have a link?) How much of Dr. Jenkin's old article even applies to Dr. Wood's new textbook? When Dr. Jenkins writes a book review -- chapter by chapter -- of Dr. Wood's textbook, then maybe he'll be applicable. I won't dwell on the problems that Dr. Jenkins himself has, like the irony of his research and employers being in the very area he tries to debunk Dr. Wood on.

What's it going to take to get you on the same page to be reading Dr. Wood's actual words from her textbook and then determining their validity and applicability?

Help Advance the Search for Truth

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Maxwell C. Bridges : help advance my search for truth

2012-02-07

Dear Mr. Shack,

Our discussion on Truth & Shadows was enlightening. Caused me to change my tune.

To further my transformation and to help advance my search for truth, I was hoping that you would consider seriously this request for assistance from you and the Clues Forums team.

First, could you please set up a Dr. Wood's thread on Clues Forum whose purpose will be to evaluate images used to support certain contentions (e.g., Hutchisen Effect)? Let me know its URL. (Also, some sort of a subscribe feature would be useful, otherwise I might appear rude for not responding to others because I missed their comments. )

Second, could you offer me ("Herr der Elf" on Clues Forum and easier to type than "Señor El Once") some "limited immunity" or "protection from banishment?"

Of course, you may impose restrictions for me, even though I believe I have demonstrated that I am a respectful debate opponent who is open-minded enough to objectively review all of the evidence and change his mind when the foundation of his arguments is wrong. I'll try to confine myself to the Dr. Wood thread. (I'm just one person). But in the event someone directs me to some other thread with related evidence, I can't promise that I won't pipe up with a reasonable, respectful response there -- and who knows if a Dr. Wood comment/defense won't be appropriate.

My point is, I've read the opinions of other reputable participants and admins, and I fear that without a thin layer of protection from you, they'll ban me (for my defense of nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood) before we make the big discoveries that could potentially get everyone to agree.

The following are links to the initial set of images that could use expert scrutiny.

Motivation for 9/11

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Herr der Elf : Motivation for 9/11

2012-02-02

The energy requirements of content pulverization are massive and were observable from the first few seconds of the towers' demise. The logistics of carrying this out using conventional explosives and even super-duper nano-thermite is both massive and risky. Why bother, if you've got deep pockets, an arsensal of exotic weapons, and generals & majors literally dying to push the button?

I've read Dr. Wood's textbook and highly recommend it. Its weakness is also its strength in providing data points and few connecting trend lines. The energy questions that she brings up are the smoking gun.

If you are a mainstream 9/11 Truther, you need to consider Dr. Wood's work, because when you do the math on super-duper nano-thermite, it cannot account for the duration (many weeks) of under-rubble hot-spots without (unrealistic) massive quantities and a way to feed it into the hot-spot. Another energy source for the destruction must be sought. (I vote milli-nuclear reactors to power DEW devices, if not milli-nukes.)

Among the official conspiracy theory (OCT) huggers in this forum are those who prop up the "peer-review" straw man. Are you so science challenged that you cannot review the work of another citizen?

Another participant challenged us to show the weapons. Google "Active Denial System" and see it played out at lower amperage. You can find YouTube videos of lasers taking out missiles. A DEW device could be targeted to miss the outer structure as well as the spire/core supporting it. The energy applied, like a microwave oven, would instantly change the state of residual water molecules in content (e.g., concrete, drywall, humans) instantly into steam, whose expanding volume pressure would rip apart/dustify the content, like what was observed.

Want to know why 9/11 was done? To rob us while advancing an agenda that was un-Constitutional, un-American, and even anti-American and un-Christian.

The WTC-4 had vaults with billions (some say trillions) in gold. A portion of this gold (millions) was recovered... loaded into the trailer of a truck under WTC-5 with no bodies. The human casualties at the Pentagon were limited to the Office of Naval Intelligence, its records, and its personnel who were investigating the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted for DoD spending announced by Rumsfeld on 9/10 (the day before). WTC-7 held the records of the SEC and their destruction ended many pending cases of financial misdeeds (of prominent Bush backers). Silverstein got a couple of billion in insurance for his $50 million investment in the WTC complex lease, although his lawyers argued he should get seven billion. Let us also not forget the relaxing of the trading rules in the days after 9/11 under the auspices of "stabilizing the markets." Lots of money was laundered then, and earnest students of this should google "Black Eagle Fund" and "Marcos Fund", essentially old gold stolen by Germans/Japanese from their enemies, found by the Americans, never repatriated with their rightful owners (as per law), and used all these years to fund black ops. One such operation was the tanking of the Russian economy through market manipulation during Bush I using chits on that gold that were to come due... 9/11/2001.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in the late 1990's was made up of neo-cons, many of whom later obtained influential roles in the Bush Administration. They achieved most of their goals set up in 1999 which included: changing the rules for how and why America goes to war (e.g., pre-emptive strikes), changing the rules on how America does war (e.g., outsourcing, rendition, indefinite detention, torture), establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (moved from Saudi Arabia -- one of CIA-asset Osama bin Laden's demands -- to Bagdad), and acknowledging that all of the above would be a slow transition unless they had "a new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the public.

Anyone who has studied lending and the Federal Reserve knows that creating money/credit out-of-thin-air and charging interest are an unsubstainable model. Crashes have to happen. Those in the know reap rewards when the economy goes up, and have the inside track to reap greater rewards when it goes down. Lots of money changed hands towards the 1%-ers in the Bush years; we're not talking "stocks in corporations", we're talking the actual "brick-and-mortar" establishments being bought up for fractions of their values.

The media was complicit in 9/11. Dr. Wood hits the tip of this iceberg when she points out the weatherman-conspiracy to suddenly not report Hurricane Erin that they had been tracking all week, was at its closest point to NYC on 9/11, and represented a threat if not in turning toward to NYC then in storm surges, air plane travel, and danger to other coastal cities. "September Clues" (google it) takes you down a deep rabbit hole in how we were duped not only on 9/11, but continually since then by the corporate media.

I stand on Dr. Wood's shoulders, but deviate from trend lines that others might draw from her work. Free-energy? Cold-fusion? Hutchison’s Effect?

In my books, a milli-nuclear reactor (like from a submarine) to power multiple DEW devices in the tower would be easier to deploy and its unspent but fizzling nuclear material more easily explains unquenchable hot-spots, 1st responder ailments, dog-and-pony-show papers to dismiss anomalous radiation readings (e.g., Dr. Jones), and the nuclear hazmat procedures at ground zero (e.g., constant watering of the piles, trucking in fresh dirt, spreading it out, then removing it days later).

Slowly I've been discovering small errors in her work, yet many nuggets of truth remain that individuals need to mine, refine, and re-purpose.

Insufficient Criticism of Shack's Work to Discount It

Hide All / Expand All

---

---

Señor El Once : Insufficient Criticism of Shack's Work to Discount It

2012-02-02

To this day, I have not come across any knowledgeable criticism (or, as popularly called,”debunking”) of my work.

Dear Mr. Shack,

I agree. Having ridden your "September Clues" pony into many a 9/11 skirmish -- against both OCT-ers and 9/11 Truthers --, I have not come across sufficient criticism in specific detail or comprehensiveness to discount your work. Anthony Larson came the closest, but he petered out very quickly. A close second was Ace using your material, getting ambushed, but even then having your video fakery charges still survive.

It should not surprise thinkers that military control of the media would happen and would be seemless in America on the D-day. And if the media sees fit to photoshop the already drop-dead beautiful, then their persistent tweaks to all 9/11 images shouldn't be ruled out.

You wrote:

I used the uncompromising (and naturally off-putting) “100%” word to describe my assessment of the 9/11 videos fraudulent nature.

It isn't just off-putting. It shoots yourself and your purposes in the foot.

Even if you could prove that 100% of the 9/11 images were tainted somehow, you do truth no favors if you don't assess the percentage of potential manipulation that occurred in each one.

I mean, does the digital insertion of a (fake) crying firemen saluting a flag into the backdrop of the (real) twisted rubble of a building diminish the validity of the rubble? Maybe or maybe not. But if so, to what degree?

Yes, your efforts are proving that all 9/11 images should be questioned. But your imprecise language tends to throw out the untainted and truthful remnants that do remain within a picture, across pictures, across cameras, across time.

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

Hide All / Expand All

---

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

2011-01-27

Dear Mr. McKee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Hide All / Expand All

Ralph Showman : the new skipper of the Milky Way Express

2012-01-23

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

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

---

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

2012-01-23

Dear Mr. Showman,

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

Do you have Dr. Wood's textbook?

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

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

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

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

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

As for no-planes, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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