When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie


By Craig McKee

Myth: Most “conspiracy theorists” thought 9/11 was an inside job from day one, because these types of people always imagine elaborate conspiracies even though the evidence rarely backs them up. Most are paranoid and obsessive.

Reality: Many if not most of the members of the 9/11 Truth movement took months or years to begin doubting what we have been told. Those who have become leaders of the movement tend to be intelligent and well educated, and they were open-minded enough to consider evidence that we hadn’t been told the truth by the government or the media.

I decided to pose a question to some of the most notable members of the movement to find out exactly when they twigged that 9/11 was an inside job and not a terrorist attack perpetrated by fundamentalist Muslims. Here’s the question I sent them:

“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?”

For the purpose of this article, I’m defining “truth leaders” as being people who have been active in the movement in some visible way – spreading the word either by organizing activities or by researching and writing about or making films about 9/11 to raise awareness. It does not connote an endorsement of their various positions on 9/11.

I was fortunate to receive responses from the majority of the best known truth activists I wrote to. These included David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Barbara Honegger, Mike Gravel, Rob Balsamo, Cynthia McKinney, and 30 others listed below. All responses are original and were sent to me by the respondents with the exception of Balsamo’s, which he offered from a previously posted statement.

As you will read, the respondents’ backgrounds run the gamut. There are academics, authors, pilots, engineers, chemists, architects, journalists, politicians, musicians, filmmakers, lawyers, soldiers, and citizen researchers and activists of all kinds. There is a former U.S. senator, a former congresswoman, a high-level NASA executive, a policy analyst in the Reagan White House, and a Nobel Peace Prize nominee.

It’s an impressive group to say the least. In assembling it, I deliberately did not restrict myself to people I most agree with – or who most agree with each other. I sent the question to as many members of the Truth movement as I could. I’m not interested in entertaining criticism that one person or another should have been excluded. I think it’s much more interesting to read responses from people with disparate views. The length of the answers varies greatly, and cuts were kept to a minimum.

Here are the participants in this order:

David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker, Cynthia McKinney, William Veale, Barbara Honegger, Mike Gravel, Craig Ranke, Rob Balsamo, Cindy Sheehan, Niels Harrit, Shelton Lankford, James Fetzer, James Hufferd, Adam Syed, George Ripley, Adam Ruff, Sheila Casey, Bruce Sinclair, Elizabeth Woodworth, Josh Blakeney, Aldo Marquis, Frances Shure, Maxwell C. Bridges, Anna Yeisley, Mark Gaffney, Giulietto Chiesa, Paul Zarembka, Ken Freeland, Jonathan Mark, Dwain Deets, Jeffrey Orling, Massimo Mazzucco, Nelisse Muga, Matthew Witt, Simon Shack, Graeme MacQueen.

And here’s what they said:

 David Ray Griffin (Retired theology professor; past nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize for his 9/11 work; founder, Consensus 9/11 Panel; author of 10 books on 9/11)

In the fall of 2002, one of my students at the Claremont School of Theology told me that a visiting professor said that 9/11 was an inside job and asked if I wanted to meet him. I said yes, and after talking with him, I told him that his theory certainly seemed plausible, given all the things the U.S. government had done (I was working on a book manuscript on U.S. imperialism), but that I would need to see evidence. I studied the evidence he emailed but concluded that it was not persuasive, so I went back to my work on U.S. imperialism

But early in 2003, another colleague from another institution sent Professor John Cobb the URL for a short version (provided in Paul Burks’ WantToKnow) of Paul Thompson’s “Complete 9/11 Timeline.” It took only a few hours to realize that its reports of stories contradicting the official story that had appeared in the mainstream press – but usually only once – was of utmost importance. I then obtained books on the subject, starting with Gore Vidal’s Dreaming War, which led me to Nafeez Ahmed’s War on Freedom.

Barrie Zwicker (Journalist, filmmaker and author of Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-Up of 9/11)

I knew before noon on 9/11, because I realized that for the USAF to fail to turn a wheel until it was too late, during a drama in the sky of almost two hours was, simply, impossible.

So there had to be a USAF stand-down, which means an inside job.

Cynthia McKinney (Former congresswoman and presidential nominee for the Green Party in 2008)

Immediately after the tragedies, I called for an investigation of what happened in an Op-Ed piece that appeared in several newspapers. I noted that airplane crashes, train wrecks, and other accidents always routinely result in exhaustive investigations – why not with the tragedies of 11 September 2001?

Instead, both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney were actively obstructing any investigation with lame-brained excuses that didn’t make any sense. Eventually, a tightly controlled victims’ compensation fund was established that restricted legal inquiry by victims and survivors into the tragedies.

As my last legislative act before being expelled from Congress by the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., I introduced legislation to nullify the rule forcing victims to choose between accepting financial help from the fund and knowing the truth.

We were never told the truth by the Bush Administration. Secretary of State Colin Powell promised a white paper to the people of the U.S. detailing what happened and who the culprits were; the white paper was never forthcoming. Instead, Tony Blair issued a report with an advisory that the contents could not be construed as evidence in a court of law. So, to this day, we all know what we saw, but we don’t know officially what happened. In the absence of truth from the government, the people must, themselves, find truth.

William Veale (Lawyer for April Gallop, legal spokesman for the Consensus 9/11 Panel)

I was shown A New Pearl Harbor (by David Ray Griffin) in 2004.  As a trial lawyer, it is always the amalgamation of evidence that convinces. It is rarely one piece of evidence, especially not in the face of a strong case for the opposite proposition. The fact that Griffin presented a compelling case over the entire range of possible evidence put me well on the way to being convinced. When I read Omissions and Distortions, and it was clear that the government would not, and could not respond to so many specific assertions, there was virtually no doubt remaining.  It is my experience that people with explanations of damning evidence are hard to shut up.  That is why evidence of silence in the face of an accusation of wrongdoing is admissible in court.

Now that we have the finding of nano-thermite, there is no room for questioning the inside job theory at all. Nano-thermite is the equivalent of DNA in a criminal case.

Barbara Honegger (Journalist, former policy analyst in the Reagan administration, and author of The Pentagon Attack Papers)

On the morning of 9/11, I was watching a split screen on television with Bush sitting in the Florida classroom after Card whispered in his ear (which we were later told was that a second tower had been hit in NYC and the nation was under attack) on one side, and innocent victims jumping to their deaths from those very towers on the other, and knew something was terribly, terribly wrong.  My first thought was that Bush had foreknowledge and was intentionally being seen by the whole world as not being in charge and therefore not ‘responsible’ for what he knew was about to happen.

Mike Gravel (Former U.S. senator who helped leak the “Pentagon Papers”; founder, Citizens 9/11 Commission)

It took me three days to overcome the impact of the consequences of 9/11. My whole public life was a battle against the military Congressional industrial complex. 9/11 was the MCIC’s lock on the world. A book by Seven Story Press A Political Odyssey: The Rise of American Militarism and One Man’s Fight to Stop It details my experiences.

It was only in 2010 that I developed an appreciation of the fine scientific work done by the 9/11 Truth Movement, David Ray Griffin and others, to disprove the government story line. What followed was my suggestion to go to the people via direct democracy at the state or federal level to bring about a new citizens’ investigation commission.

Craig Ranke (Independent journalist; co-founder, Citizen Investigation Team)

I was immediately suspicious that something fishy was going on just because I knew that whatever was happening would be used as a pretext for war. However those suspicions went into hibernation the very next day as reports of cell phone calls started coming out and the barrage of propaganda regarding Bin Laden began.  It seemed believable to me at the time, so I basically went right back to “sleep” so to speak.

I didn’t really question it again until I started researching vote fraud online after the 2004 U.S. presidential election. In the course of doing that, I came across information about 9/11 which made me take a second look. There were a lot of different pieces of information that, when taken together, led me to reject the official story, including information pertaining to the demolition of the WTC.

At the Pentagon, the fact that the damage seemed inconsistent with the impact of a 757 led to serious doubts and questions in my mind, and ultimately inspired our investigation. Needless to say, the evidence we uncovered proved my suspicions (and the suspicions of millions of other people) justified and gave me an even greater level of certainty that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

Rob Balsamo (Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth)

In May 2006, I was watching Glenn Beck’s show on CNN. The Department of Defense had just released the infamous “5 frames” of stop-action video of the Pentagon attack. Beck showed the frames and commented, “You can see a 757 in 10 seconds flat!  Either that or a naked Michael Moore heading for the buffet!  This should put all those conspiracy theories to rest”.  While watching it, I’m thinking to myself, “I can’t see any 757.”  And I’m asking myself, “Are there still unresolved questions regarding 9/11?”

So I started poking around on the Internet trying to find anything I can to back up the government’s story, because I didn’t want to believe our government might have had something to do with 9/11.

Early on, I came across Operation Northwoods.  It blew me away that elements of our government had seriously planned acts of terrorism inside the United States to justify invading Cuba. Consider that 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean had said, “The greatest failure of 9/11 was a lack of imagination,” yet just under 40 years prior, elements of our own government imagined perpetrating such an event!

In 2006, I co-founded Pilots for 9/11 Truth to more formally conduct research on the aviation-related aspects of 9/11.  In August 2006, Pilots received from the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) a copy of the Flight Data Recorder data of Flight 77, which, according to the official account, hit the Pentagon.

We analyzed the data and announced our conclusion on 3/26/07 that “The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.” Much more information about this can be found in our video documentary and our press release.

So now, a year after I began looking into the events of 9/11 and having devoted a lot of time and effort researching those events, I’m frustrated because we haven’t been able to find anything to confirm the government’s story. And what’s worse is that the FBI and NTSB refuse to even discuss with us the many obvious problems we found in the Flight 77 FDR.

Cindy Sheehan (Anti-war activist, radio host, author)                  

I came to believe 9/11 wasn’t what it seemed when George Bush said he didn’t want to “hear any crazy conspiracy theories.” I don’t know with 100% certainty which parts are false and which aren’t, but the “official” story comes from a pack of known liars.

Niels Harrit (9/11 researcher; associate chemistry professor, University of Copenhagen)

By accident, I saw Building 7 go down in 2006 on a DVD somebody had sent to my wife. Since that moment, there has been no way back.

Lt. Col. Shelton Lankford (U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot, retired; member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth)

Even before 9/11/01, I closely followed the actions of the administration and the rhetoric they employed to get the nation and its institutions aligned toward their PNAC (Project For a New American Century) goals. When they began the so-called War on Terror, it smacked too much of exploiting a created opportunity. It was my reading of Michael Ruppert’s book Crossing the Rubicon that turned my initial misgivings about a stolen election (2000) into alarm about what kind of people had hijacked my country, and to what purpose.

David Ray Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor took me past the point of no return. I joined Pilots for 9/11 Truth in 2006.  I have devoted several hours a day for the past eight years or so keeping up with newly discovered facts and conversations about the 9/11 events. The actions of the FBI regarding the Moussaoui case, pre-9/11, the unconvincing official story of Flight 77, and finally the CIT evidence of a deliberate murderous deception at the Pentagon removed the last shreds of doubt from my mind.

James Fetzer (9/11 and JFK researcher; founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)

When I watched the “collapse” of the Twin Towers on 9/11, I was convinced that something was terribly wrong, but I never imagined I would ever be in the position to do anything about it. Not until 2005, when David Ray Griffin wrote to me to suggest we might collaborate on a book on JFK and 9/11, where I wrote the part on JFK and he the one on 9/11, however, did I become drawn into doing serious research on the subject. I founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth in December of that year, where my first study would be, “Thinking about ‘Conspiracy Theories’: 9/11 and JFK,” which would be published in the first book from Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy: The Scamming of America (2007).

James Hufferd (Founder, 9/11 Truth of Central Iowa; co-ordinator 9/11 Truth Grassroots Organization)

I had determined by 9/11 or early on 9/12, as soon as the basic OCT (official conspiracy theory) started to appear basically fully articulated, with pics and data about all the “hijackers” and their roles and that Osama bin Laden was at the bottom of it, only a couple of hours after – and maybe before – the collapse of Building 7, that the whole story would have to have been written to release in advance. There just hadn’t been enough time to have more than barely begun to carry out the extensive investigation that would have been required. And I knew they wouldn’t have left it up to a gang of rag-tag little more than teenagers to pull off.

Adam Syed (9/11 Truth activist; member, Cincinnati 9/11 Truth)

Certainly by 2004, and particularly with the release of Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, it was painfully clear how corrupt the Bush administration was. While Fahrenheit didn’t go there with inside job evidence, it documented the stolen 2000 election, and how the administration exploited 9/11 in the worst possible ways.  It became clear at that point that even if the administration didn’t orchestrate 9/11, it seemed to be a wet dream come true for them.

2005 was my tipping point though. The revelation of the Downing Street Memos, which were extensively covered in Britain but kept mostly on the hush-hush in the U.S. media, was key. Combine this with DRG’s May 2005 Madison WI lecture, which was broadcast on C-SPAN, along with the release of the documentary 9/11 In Plane Site by Dave von Kleist, and I was a full blown truther by the summer of that year. While many better documentaries have been made since In Plane Site, it was nonetheless the best offering at the time, and one for which it was clear that even if 30% of the film was accurate, 9/11 was certainly an inside job.

George Ripley (Steering committee, Citizens 9/11 Commission campaign)

My first step into the rabbit hole came the day my housemate at the time, Jose Rodriguez, returned from the Chicago 9/11 convention where he had helped his close friend Gabriel Day, one of the conference organizers.

It was important for me to have a close friend present the information to me. Jose brought back papers describing the near free fall collapse and synapses began firing across the breadth and depth of my mind. It became suddenly clear to me. On some level I was a bit dismayed that I hadn’t seen it before because it was suddenly all too obvious that the buildings could not have collapsed in the manner they did without being blown.  Nothing I have ever learned or thought since then has changed my mind in the least. Indeed, it has only strengthened the conviction.  However, it wasn’t until I learned about the thermate that I was able to be open to all my friends and family about the facts of the matter.

Although I had been an ardent activist for social justice and had even been arrested in Philadelphia at the GOP convention before Bush ever stole his first presidential election, it did not really occur to me that a “domestic” enemy might have purposefully orchestrated such a diabolical act. I suddenly realized they had. It was a life changing moment.  The “ton of bricks” had hit home.

Adam Ruff (9/11 truth activist and researcher)

I started to question the official story in early 2002 because of the “Hunt The Boeing” website and the accompanying photos of the pentagon damage. After getting a copy of Thierry Meyssan’s book Pentagate and reading it in one sitting I knew the official story was a lie.

I didn’t start to suspect the demolition of the towers until later when I looked back at the videos and saw the squibs with my own eyes. Shortly after that period 9/11 In Plain Sight came out and confirmed my suspicions about the Pentagon and about the tower demolitions. From 2002 onward I have been doing my own deep research into 9/11 and other state sponsored terror events such as 7/7, Operation Gladio, and the Oklahoma City bombing. My eyes are definitely open now to what is really going on behind the smoke screen put out by the corporate media.

Sheila Casey (Independent journalist, member DC911truth)

In August 2007, I Googled “impeach Cheney” and ended up on Paul Craig Roberts’ website. Reading through his essays, I saw the line “9/11 didn’t happen the way we were told,” and a recommendation for the book A New Pearl Harbor (by David Ray Griffin).

I got on the Internet and soon saw the seven-second collapse of Building 7. That convinced me to look further, so I went to the library that same day and checked out Griffin’s book. I read that book over the next two days, and when I finished, I was full-on MIHOP (made it happen on purpose).

But I was in the peculiar position of still believing that conspiracy theorists were looney tunes nut jobs, even as I had just become one! So it took me five months to go to my first DC911truth meeting – I was apprehensive about meeting “real” conspiracy theorists, believing that I myself must be some kind of anomaly. (Of course I found out that I’m not.)

Bruce Sinclair (Core member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth)

“Hunt the Boeing” got me going (in early 2002)!  Also, it seemed very fishy that the government had it all figured out by the next day…

Elizabeth Woodworth (Co-founder, 9/11 Consensus Panel; collaborator with David Ray Griffin)

I watched a Vision TV program in December, which as I recall had Barrie Zwicker interviewing Michael Ruppert. I found it very persuasive and telephoned my brother to tell him about it. Then I went back to my life, until, in April 2006, a former neighbour, a psychologist, handed me a book called The New Pearl Harbor, by Dr. David Ray Griffin.

The writing was crystal clear and the layout of the evidence was so logically compelling and strongly documented that there was no escaping the conclusion that 9/11 had been permitted to happen by forces within the United States.

The certain knowledge of this through the concrete detail that was presented changed me over a period of about three days, as I adjusted to it. It penetrated my world view of American politics in a new way, such that I was unable to endure hearing the words, so oft repeated within minutes of turning on the radio or television, “Ever since 9/11….”  without doing something about the preposterous fantasy that had descended upon us and was so frequently reiterated.

So I wrote a book review of The New Pearl Harbor for the New York Times, and I contacted its author about a question pertaining to the review, and that led to correspondence in which Dr. Griffin asked me to proof-read a chapter from his then current manuscript, Debunking 9/11 Debunking. That was five years ago, and we have now worked on 7 books and perhaps 20 essays together.

Joshua Blakeney (Freelance journalist, staff writer at Veterans Today, and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth)

I participated in several anti-war demonstrations in London prior to emigrating to Canada in 2005 and was thus enamoured with the anti-imperialist struggles of those in the Middle East from a relatively young age. By 2006 I was enrolled in post-secondary education at the University of Lethbridge studying Sociology and in 2007 enrolled in Prof. Anthony J. Hall’s Globalization Studies classes. Prof. Hall was at the time I met him revisiting the literature on 9/11, such as David Ray Griffin’s exceptional books on the subject, and was incorporating certain questionable aspects of 9/11 into his Globalization Studies curriculum. He and I befriended each other, discussed 9/11 at length, shared links, exchanged notes, etc., which led us both to conclude that the official story of 9/11 is false. WTC Building 7 is one obvious example of the falsity of the official story. Al-Qaeda, even if it exists as a coherent and autonomous non-state actor, could not possibly have planted explosives in WTC 7.

One of the main political issues I became involved in during my undergraduate years was the Israel/Palestine conflict. In 2008, my Palestinian friend and I founded a chapter of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) at the University of Lethbridge.

Initially, I compartmentalized the Israel-Palestine cause and the 9/11 Truth cause in my mind. But as I explored the subject of 9/11 I began to realize that the Israel-Palestine conflict and the events of 9/11 are not two separate subjects. Rather, it appears that they are tightly interwoven. Thus, my main political objectives in recent years have been to encourage the 9/11 Truth movement not to shy away from dealing with the Israeli dimension of 9/11 whilst concurrently pressuring the pro-Palestinian movement to recognize the reality that Israel’s crimes extend to 9/11.

I often tell my comrades in the pro-Palestinian movement: “Imagine if the Afrikaners had, out of desperation, killed 3,000 Americans and blamed it on the ANC, wouldn’t the anti-apartheid movement have been foolish not to have capitalized on this to demonstrate the rapacity of the ethnic nationalist regime in South Africa?”

It is clear to me that the only way to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict is for the citizens of the United States to empathize with those inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank who are being subjected to Israel’s genocidal policies. If we tell the citizens of the U.S. that Israel killed 3,000, or even 3 million Arabs, many will not give a damn because Arabs and Muslims have been dehumanized by the Western media.

If we inform the people of the United States that nearly 3,000, mostly Caucasian, Americans were slain on 9/11 with the complicity of Zionists, they might begin to pressure their government to end the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Thus, topics like the five Mossad agents arrested on 9/11, the Israeli security companies running the airports implicated on 9/11, Larry Silverstein’s close relationship with Israeli politicians, the role of Israeli citizen Dov Zakheim in the Pentagon, the Israelocentrism of the neoconservative movement, etc., ought to be spoken of widely. This might help to bring an end to the Israel/Palestine conflict which, after all, is a microcosm of the broader “war on terror.”

Aldo Marquis (Independent journalist; co-founder, Citizen Investigation Team)

I first became aware of problems of with 9/11 back in 2002-03 after I watched 9/11: The Road to Tyranny by Alex Jones. I was completely floored by the alternative news stories shedding a whole other light on 9/11. I fully immersed myself in researching these claims and others. In doing so, I learned there was much misinformation and disinformation floating out there, although there were still enough unanswered problems with the official story to keep me digging.

Soon, I turned my attention towards the Pentagon attack, as it was the most controversial and most challenging aspects of 9/11. I realized that the only way I can truly know what happened is to actually go out there and interview witnesses to the event obtaining key details about what they saw and where they saw it.

I went there prepared to be proven wrong about everything I believed about the attack and was open to the official version of events. Once I learned for myself that the plane flew on the north side of the gas station, I absolutely knew that 9/11 was an “inside job” orchestrated by powerful forces within our government, military and intelligence communities. Once I had enough corroboration, there wasn’t a doubt left in my mind. It was an inside job.

Frances Shure (Co-founder of Colorado 9/11 Visibility and a peace and environmental activist)

In the fall of 2001, I viewed Michael Ruppert’s documentary Truth and Lies About 9/11 several times and began the process of shifting my worldview by studying that DVD and conferring with friends about it.  At that point, I was on the borderline of LIHOP and MIHOP.  In the summer of 2002, I read Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed’s War on Freedom, studied it and wrote a summary, which I hand delivered along with a copy of the book to Representative Diana DeGette’s executive director in the course of an appointment with him, at which time he took this information very seriously.

It was all of the evidence taken as a whole in Ahmed’s well-documented book that gave rise to my great concern, along with Barrie Zwicker’s documentary, The Great Deception, on the air defence failure and other false flag operations in history.

In 2004, I became aware of the near free fall acceleration of the Twin Towers.  That was the coup de grace for any theory but MIHOP. I have also studied theories and documents which advocate for the official account of 9/11 and have found nothing anywhere near as convincing as the evidence which supports the alternative theory.

Maxwell C. Bridges (Blogger and frequent contributor to “Truth and Shadows” under the name Señor El Once)

My detractors will peg me with “a track record of gullibility,” because I had open-minded and tolerant tendencies developed well before 9/11 that allowed me to objectively consider viewpoints and evidence that ran contradictory to “steamrolled” mainstream media views (e.g., punk rock, international news, art & foreign films, world music). 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, and obtained more and more news from the internet. The political theater of George Bush being appointed president by the Supreme Court in 2000 had my cackles up about the neo-cons and rightfully suspicious of each and every one of their endeavors. 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.

Before noon (MST) on September 11, 2001, I saw the first Internet versions of the towers’ pulverization. From my education in engineering, I understood 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 and overkill 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.

The “bi-partisan” and overwhelming passing without reading of the massive, fully fleshed-out, waiting-in-the-wings, and dubiously named USA PATRIOT Act by Congress in the weeks following 9/11 – weeks that contained D.C. snipers and Anthrax attacks to further heighten the fear to get public submission – were what clued me by November 2001 that the 9/11 official story was false and that 9/11 was an inside job. These were underscored by the persistent “America Under Attack” and “America at War” propaganda slogans of media and by the overly patriotic (and un-Christian) sentiments that blindly and vengefully advocated ruthless bombing and invasion of Afghanistan (and then Iraq). Too many coincidental dots that formed trend lines that later (and unearthed earlier) Bush Administration’s dots also aligned with.

Anna Yeisley (Member Tea Party Patriots for 9/11 Truth and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

From the beginning I was confused as to how a bunch Afghani rebels were able to take down two buildings without damaging any other buildings. If you were an Islamic extremist who hated America so much you would commit suicide why wouldn’t you plan to take out as many buildings as possible? It was obvious to me that the attack was planned to create as little damage as possible except to the twin towers, so I was confused. Another early question was the amount of paper littering the streets outside the towers. Why didn’t the paper burn up?

I didn’t question the official story until 2006 or 2007 when I stumbled upon Loose Change on YouTube and heard “nano-thermite” for the first time.

I tried to connect to others who also questioned 9/11 by starting a meet-up group but found few interested. I didn’t become a 9/11 activist until I signed an AE911 petition online and volunteered to organize a press conference in front of Congressman Wittman’s office in Sept 2010 and attended DC Press Conference with Richard Gage.

Mark H. Gaffney (Author of The 9/11 Mystery Plane and Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side)

I became convinced in Dec 2006 after conducting a very exhaustive review of NIST’s 2005 report on the WTC collapse.  I posted a paper on this in, I think it was, January 2006. Then a year later I posted a revised version. Here are the links (below). The only error in my research that came to light was a typo.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm

Giulietto Chiesa (Italian journalist, producer of the 9/11 documentary Zero)

Immediately after having seen on TV the events while they were happening…  It seemed to me, at first sight, that it was a huge TV show. And I argued that only a group of Western people, accustomed to the modern TV, could conceive of such a show.

You have to keep in mind that I was visiting Afghanistan in January that year, and I came back and wrote the book Afghanistan Anno Zero (Afghanistan Year Zero), which was in Italian book shops just three days before 9/11.

I was in Genoa in July that year during the tragic G-8 where a young man was killed by Italian police, and I wrote a book about that, which just about to be released with the title Genoa/G-8. In that book the picture of international relations had become a very worrying one.

This means I was, in a certain sense, “psychologically prepared” to consider the possibility of an event of that kind. Frankly speaking I was waiting for something similar. In Afghanistan Anno Zero I had written, quite prophetically, that a war in Afghanistan was really possible in the short term.

In any case I remember that that evening I began looking for more detailed information, and  I was overwhelmed by the contradictory explanations. I believed this was normal during a chaotic situation like this, but I realized something very strange was happening behind the headlines and photos.

Only later, three or four days after the event, my suspicions began to take shape, and I began working systematically on the subject.

Paul Zarembka (Economics professor, State University of New York, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11)

My serious questioning about 9/11 began with Michael Ruppert’s talk at the University of Toronto in January 2002. He showed about 10 times that portion of the Zapruder film of Kennedy’s assassination with the thrust of Kennedy’s head going backwards, so that the fatal shot could only come from his front. Ruppert thus indicated the role of the U.S. state to have us believe otherwise.

Since my Marxist understanding of political economy helps me to perceive that a capitalist state is controlled by that class, I realized that I had an obligation to know from evidence if the 9/11 event was based inside the U.S. state, rather than being a foreign act that we are led to believe.

Since then, it has been an unending process of learning more and more about 9/11 with many issues not fully solved. And there has been an accumulation of evidence pointing to the operatives in the U.S. state, not one or two most telling pieces. The total inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission Report is telling.

Ken Freeland (Citizens 9/11 Commission; member, Houston 9/11 Truth)

It’s hard for me to answer this question because in truth, I think I never fully accepted the government’s account. The question would then be, what piece of information was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me, and convinced me that the government was definitely not telling the truth.

I think perhaps it was learning that bin Laden denied involvement in the events of 9/11.  It really makes no sense to go through this much organizational planning and risk taking for a spectacular terrorist act for which you then deny responsibility.  What’s the point?  This never made the slightest sense to me, and is at odds with the track record of great terrorist events (except for those for which our own government is suspected of involvement).

Jonathan Mark (Founder FlybyNews; founder, 9/11 Teleconference Group)

At the time of September 11, 2001, I was involved with a campaign to stop offensive weapons from entering outer space. The twin towers crumbling before my eyes initiated a free-fall on many levels in our civilization. I wasn’t sure of anything at first, and even Osama bin Laden seemed like a candidate. The free fall of our civilization was that 9/11 was used to justify the horrendous “war on terror,” pre-emptive war, loss of justice, habeas corpus, human rights, bill of rights. Everything was going down, fast, and after six months notice, President Bush axed the ABM Treaty and started putting offensive weapons in space.

The campaign to prevent this from happening to help reverse the arms race failed, and 9/11 was used as justification for such extreme measures. So I started reporting articles looking into the events with more depth. The January 17, 2002 issue included an article by William Rivers Pitt, “Hell to Pay.” Slowly the facts built up to a strong case of government abuse and involvement in crimes against humanity. Without the facts of what really happened on 9/11 and beyond, there will be no truth, justice, or peace. 9/11 justice is key. FN’’s archives on this issue is posted from this title: New 9/11 Investigation vs. New World Order.

Dwain Deets (Former senior NASA executive; member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth)

I didn’t suspect anything was amiss the first couple of years. In early 2004, I became quite concerned about limitations on future energy supplies. I started following Michael Ruppert’s “From the Wilderness” website. Based on a recommendation on the site, in Aug. 2004, I attended a financial planning workshop “off shore” in Mazatlan, Mexico. Ruppert was one of the speakers, and that motivated me to read his upcoming book Crossing the Rubicon, published Oct. 2004. That gave me the big picture from a strategic positioning of U.S. military in order to secure energy supplies well into the future.

On the fourth anniversary, I wrote “I’m completely convinced it was a LIHOP.” In early 2006, I found out how difficult it was to speak out in public with this contrarian view. I was the editor of a newsletter for a local “skeptic” group. The group is called San Diego Association for Rational Inquire (SDARI). I found this group would entertain no views about 9/11 other than the official story.

I attempted to publish an article in the newsletter of which I was the editor, a letter which I considered neutral on AAL77, rather than adhering strictly to the official story. When I was unable to publish this article, I sent a letter to the parent organization (Skeptical Inquirer) resigning as editor.

On the sixth anniversary, I wrote “I see that 9/11 was a ‘False Flag’ operation.”  I also wrote, “I’ve become more and more amazed at the sophistication of 9/11. Not just in pulling off the operation, i.e., the mechanics of it, but even more impressive in a sick way, the duping of the American public.”

I went to hear Richard Gage speak when he was in San Diego (Oct. 2007), and joined AE911Truth shortly thereafter.

Jeffrey Orling (New York architect, 9/11 activist)

The first hint that something was wrong was how soon they identified the hijackers and how they managed to take over these planes. WOW, and they weren’t able to prevent these slackers from getting on the planes or intercept them?  We have spent several trillion dollars on defence and spying and surveillance, and four commercial flights were just floating around the skies all morning… something was really fishy.

And as the story emerged told to us by media – the mouthpiece of government – it seemed more and more implausible: found passport… no black boxes… where was the plane wreckage at the pentagon… why were the vids not released immediately?  Everything seemed to be a manufactured story from the get go… the phone calls from the planes.

I was surprised that the three towers fell as they did… but I didn’t suspect controlled demos.  I knew the towers were a very weird erector set design… but I didn’t understand how they collapsed until I drilled into the details of the structure.  Still not sure that they were intended to look like collapses but had some devices planted or delivered by the planes.

By the time the official story came out in the 9/11 Commission Report it was clear that it was a cover up… The more I study the event the less obvious it is what exactly happened… whose idea it was, who engineered the entire think and how they managed to pull it off.

Massimo Mazzucco (Filmmaker, journalist, and 9/11 researcher)

In August 2001 I was watching the news and I heard that in Afghanistan the Taliban had totally frozen poppy production. I remember turning to my wife and saying: “I wouldn’t be surprised if soon we’ll find a very good reason to attack Afghanistan.”

A few weeks later I was watching the twin towers collapse on television, and I simply said. “Here we go.”

At that point obviously I had no idea of how exactly the 9/11 operation had been carried out, but it was already clear to me that it could not have been done by the same people who were about to suffer some major consequences from it.

Then the information on the Pentagon attack and the twin tower demolitions started to circulate, and it all fit perfectly with the original idea of an “inside job.”

Nelisse Muga (Activist and co-founder of San Diegans for 9/11 Truth)

I began my search for 9/11 truth when I had a friend call early on a Sunday  morning in April 2005. She insisted I turn on the TV to C-Span, so reluctantly I did. Someone named Dr. David Ray Griffin was talking about 9/11/01 and questioning the 9/11 Commission Report that had recently been published. He was very convincing and simply asked his audience to look a bit closer into what might have happened. Did the official report really make sense? I quickly realized it did not.

It turned my world upside down. Originally I believed it was “blowback,” – and since that day I have been, I guess you would say obsessed – with finding the truth and living long enough to see justice. Not that we could ever make up for the lives we have destroyed. I have always had empathy for others, especially when I believe that injustice is involved.

It was shortly after this that I began our local group, San Diegans for 9/11 Truth, with Ted (Nelisse’s husband and a retired pilot) and another good friend who I had met in the Kucinich campaign in 2003. Dr. Griffin was the perfect messenger for me to begin my journey. We have read all of his books and have had him as our guest presenter down here on several occasions – lucky us!

It’s funny how Ted and I never discussed 9/11/01 until that day when we saw David on C span. He said he became suspicious in 2002 when KPBS-Nova came out with the Pancake-Theory. Ted’s degree is in structural engineering, and he knew there was no such thing. It’s much like the “domino theory” we all learned about during the Vietnam war. That was another term dreamed up by our propaganda machine to keep the public in their comfort zone. It’s now time for all of us to become very uncomfortable.

Matthew Witt (9/11 author and researcher, associate professor of Public Administration at University of La Verne, CA)

I cannot recall a particular “A ha!” moment, but there were distinctive turning points. One thing is certain: I was not an early adopter. When the towers were hit and for three years or so later I did not question the official story.

But gut level ambivalence started right away, beginning with the PATRIOT Act. It came too quickly, with virtually no debate considering the sweeping consequences of its measures. The PATRIOT Act seriously compromised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (1978) and fudged the line in all matters pertaining to search and seizure protections under Constitution. There was something way too convenient about the 9/11 incident for such sweeping, doctrinal shift in civil liberties.

From around spring of 2004 for the next three years, I was working on and off on a piece of my own that would eventually be published in an academic journal after long odyssey of rejection, finally published in the journal Administration & Society as “Conjuring the Holographic State: Scripting Security Doctrine for a (New) World of Disorder.” Lance deHaven-Smith drafted the Coda section of that piece. According to the journal managing editor, it sailed through review and was pushed ahead of queue for publication because the premise really grabbed the editor (former army military and eventually major figure in the public administration academia as one of what is known as “The Blacksburg Group”).

The piece used the Matrix film epic as narrative structure for analyzing the global war on terror. The plot point and characterizations struck me as eerily close to what the PATRIOT Act built up from its premise of “lone wolf terrorism.” Finally published in 2008, the piece suggests but does not go so far as to say 9/11 was an inside job. There is no way, still, to do so in an academic journal. This work forged close association with deHaven-Smith, who had published in 2006 a major statement to the field about elite theory in re-conceptualized under rubric “state crimes against democracy” (SCAD); a really power heuristic for staging new thinking about 9/11.

At some point during 2005 I started poking around Amazon.com for what I could find and came across Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed’s deeply probing The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation and the Anatomy of Terrorism. I credit this work with being the first major lifting of weights from my eyes. About the same time I read one of David Ray Griffin’s early books, an edited volume with Peter Dale Scott, 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Volume 1. Steven Jones’s piece in that book was a major turning point for me. How, indeed, could buildings fall nearly at the speed of gravity without being imploded?

By early 2007 I was firmly convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. The spectacular number of coincidences – Bush’s kin (cousin, I believe) owning the security company with contract for the towers, and on and on and on – defied probability of anything other than the deepest state involvement.

Among other conspiracy related work was Jim Marrs’ Rule by Secrecy, which promised to link the very weird and troubling matter of 9/11 with near and ancient esoteric societies. Marrs does a solid job with documentation, and his conjecture is mostly pretty grounded and reasonable.

I have never written anything directly about 9/11 and do not consider myself a 9/11 scholar. I started my academic career wanting to help build greener cities, with bike paths and the like. My odyssey away from that began with my inquiry into how race has shaped public institutions in America. From there onward, I realized that there were too many institutionalized obstacles to even the most basic good ideas for planning cities. Then along came 9/11 and the world we had changed forever in a heartbeat.

Simon Shack (Creator of the 9/11 film September Clues)

Like everyone else, I was shocked on 9/11 2001 by the TV news reports of four commercial airliners being simultaneously hijacked by 19 suicide hijackers armed with box-cutters crashing into the twin towers and the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania marshland. Like everyone else, I was shocked to read in the newspapers the next day, that “20,000” people had died (yes, I’ve saved copies of such dramatic newspaper headlines). And like most people I immediately had serious doubts about the veracity of this most outlandish Hollywood-smelling tale.

Within 48 hours of the event, a purported “amateur video” was aired on TV (credited to Michael Hezarkhani). It showed the alleged Flight 175 effortlessly penetrating World Trade Center 2 – without as much as an aileron breaking off… I instantly jumped up from my couch and shouted: “That’s just ridiculous! Physically impossible !!!”

For some reason that I’m quite frankly unable to fathom, I did not act upon that first reaction of mine – and as many as five more years went by before I started analyzing the available imagery of that day. I guess that, like everyone else, my mind was incapable of processing the extent of human wickedness necessary to enact such a massive hoax upon mankind. As I put together my September Clues documentary, I felt almost ashamed that it took me so long to act upon (and expose) the utter absurdity of these planes seen on TV – integrally disappearing into steel frame buildings as if they were made of Jell-O.

Of course, we now know that the news media aired an entirely pre-fabricated  “made-for-TV Hollywood movie “ –  complete with “airplane crashes” and “pyroclastic, top-down tower collapses”. Not only did we see computer-animated images of planes striking the towers – the collapses themselves were as digitally crafted as the Empire State Building seen collapsing (TOP-DOWN!) in the 1996 blockbuster Independence Day.

The collapse imagery – all of it – as well as the images showing people jumping from the towers – has by now been proven fake (digitally animated) in every imaginable way. Unfortunately, the bulk of the 9/11 “truth movement” has been hoodwinked into holding these phony, collapse animations as “proof of controlled demolition.”

In reality, the towers were of course demolished (although most likely behind a smokescreen) – but there simply is no photographic record of those brief events. Electronic jamming devices routinely used in modern warfare were most likely in place as an extra “safety-measure” to impede any private cameras from capturing the morning’s events on film (and yes – I have a few credible testimonies to this effect). This is no science-fiction tech:  For just $790, you can buy a consumer device which de-activates any video camera within a range of 70 meters. (Do a Google search for “Spymodex video jamming”). Now, imagine what the Pentagon might have!

So, once you ensure that no private camera can capture the morning’s events, you just release a smokescreen to obscure the WTC complex from public view – and bring it down with perfectly safe and reliable conventional explosives.

Anyone familiar with our longstanding and ongoing collective research at cluesforum.info (summarized and condensed at septemberclues.info) will also know that the various 9/11 victim memorials are a bunch of laughably phony, absurdly inconsistent and blatantly counterfeit databases – by now divested of any credibility. On the strength of what we know today, there is simply no more rational reason to believe that anyone died under the 9/11 “attacks” (In fact, only 405 people in the entire state of New York are listed as deceased in the official death records of that day).The whole operation was a massive simulation – as is, indeed, the entire “War on terror,” which the mainstream news media (on the payroll of the ruling goons of this world) keep selling, on a daily basis, to the unsuspecting public.

Graeme MacQueen (9/11 researcher; founder, Peace Studies program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.)

I guess I became aware in 2002 that not everyone bought the official story of 9/11. I had naively assumed it was probably true before that, although I was aware that we’d never been given proof of the truth of this story. (In fact, I was quite troubled by the video of Osama bin Laden supposedly found in Afghanistan: I never accepted the video as genuine, and I wondered why they would find it necessary to produce a fake if OBL was actually guilty of the crime.) Over the next couple of years I got more and more intrigued by the questions being raised but I was too caught up in resisting war to look into the issue properly—of course, I now blame myself for this.

Like most people, I often look to journals, thinkers and groups that I respect when I’m trying to decide whether or not to take a claim seriously. After all, none of us has the time to look into every claim, so we sort of “delegate” investigation and judgment to others.  As a peace activist and as someone on the political left here are a couple of the people I listened to:

Noam Chomsky – Sometime in late 2002 or very early 2003 (it was certainly before the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq) two of us brought Chomsky to my university, McMaster. He and his wife Carol stayed for about a week and we had a good time and lots of great discussion. Some of Chomsky’s comments were made into a documentary film, which came out in 2003: Noam Chomsky: Rebel without a Pause. A brief description of the film can be found here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368083/plotsummary The film itself can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv4IBJmzulM

I had long respected Chomsky’s views and had spoken to him several times years earlier (as far back as the 1970s). It became clear during his visit to McMaster that Chomsky did not take very seriously the claims of the 9/11 truth movement. In fact, I accompanied him to an interview with Vision TV while he was here, and Barry Zwicker was the interviewer. Barry got to the 9/11 events pretty much right away, and Noam dismissed the issue and clearly did not want to talk about it. Later, after he left McMaster, I discussed 9/11 with him (Chomsky) by email. He continued to express disbelief, but I never felt he was contemptuous of me for raising these questions. (I think his views have hardened since then.) At the time I felt he was probably right to doubt the truth movement, but I continued to put anomalies in my files and continued to have an open mind on the issue.

Johan Galtung – Johan is a major figure in peace and conflict studies, and we brought him to McMaster sometime, as I recall, in 2002. He said with respect to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job: “Possible, but unlikely.” He has essentially maintained this position, although he has become increasingly open to the inside job theory. Anyway, I was teaching in the field of peace and conflict studies and had been greatly influenced by him—in fact, I’d helped him when he gave workshops with Afghans in Pakistan in February, 2001. So when he called the inside job theory “possible, but unlikely” it shaped my own views. I decided this was a reasonable position to take, and, in fact, it may indeed be a reasonable position if a person hasn’t taken the time to look into the issue.

To make a long story short, I did eventually decide to look into it for myself. As far as I can recall this happened in 2005. I had yet another encounter with a male, aging anti-war thinker on the left (easy to see who influences me!), Ralph Schoenman. Here’s a video of a talk Schoenman gave around 2008 in case you’ve never encountered him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aci9PD6jNlg

Anyway, Mr. Schoenman and I met a couple of times after his talk at my university and we ended up getting into a heated debate. 9/11 wasn’t the major hot issue (the major hot issue was oil and the question of how much of it was left in the earth), but 9/11 did come up and Ralph pretty much said this was an obvious false flag attack and there was no excuse, this long after the event, for my continued ignorance of the basic facts. This is when I finally took up the challenge of looking into the matter for myself.

I quickly discovered Ralph was right. I don’t remember which particular publication convinced me, but I read David Griffin’s first book (The New Pearl Harbor), and the work of Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan—as well as Barry Zwicker’s work, of course. In any case, I remember the issue that finally ended my doubts. It was the “collapses” of the twin towers. I’d considered these collapses mysterious for some time, and as I read one analysis in 2005 I realized that the official account wasn’t just fishy but absolutely impossible. I can remember the precise instant when I felt this. In that instant I went from suspicion to certainty.

Ever since then I’ve put a lot of time into the issue of the destruction of the buildings. It seems to me that we can talk all we like about suspicions we have about the 19 hijackers, the long history of US involvement in false flag incidents, and so on, but there is a big difference between having suspicions (even if they are strong suspicions grounded in evidence) and being able to prove a thing to be false. In the case of the building collapses (1, 2 and 7) we can prove the official story to be false. Why not seize this opportunity?

****

I’m grateful to all of these accomplished activists and scholars for taking the time to respond to my question. I look forward to reactions and comments to anything or anyone mentioned above. I’ll have follow-up analysis of the answers in a future post. Craig McKee

294 thoughts on “When did they know? 36 Truth leaders on how they awakened to the 9/11 lie

    • Great question. In fact I did ask Dr. Wood, but she declined to offer an answer. She does not consider herself a member of the 9/11 Truth movement, and she thinks there are problems with people adopting the views of a group rather than looking for the truth. I don’t agree with her (I stand up for what I believe is true regardless of what others say) but I respect her wishes not to offer an answer. And I also understand that Dr. Wood has been very poorly treated by many in the movement.

      I may add a list to my follow-up post that shows who was approached but did not answer. There are a fair number of those.

      • Hello Craig. I am new to the group and I think this topic is a good way to start conversing with people here. Believe it or not, when I was awakened just past 9 a.m. on 9-11-01 and was informed of the North Tower being hit by an “airplane,” my intuitive reflex to another family member was to say Bush let this happen. Since 2000, I had studied about Bush’s history and was very skeptical of his motives, particularly in light of the 2000 presidential election. It did not surprise me that either this was made to happen or happened due to incompetence.

        As far as your comment that people who immediately came to the conclusion that day it was an inside job as paranoid and obsessive is not quite fair, in my view. One can have a healthy form of paranoia and most people who are successful, are very obsessive.

        Things started not making sense that day and everything since discovered has validated that original intuitive hunch.

        • I think you may have misunderstood the “paranoid and obsessive” reference. I set up a “myth” and “reality” contrast. I’m saying that people who attack and mock conspiracy theorists might think they automatically assumed 9/11 was a conspiracy and that they are paranoid and obsessive. I didn’t mean that I thought that. I endorse the opposite, in fact – the comment under “reality” is what I think.

      • Craig, thanks for your answer to my question about Dr. Wood. Like you, I understand and respect that she did not want to respond to your survey because she doesn’t consider herself part of the 9/11 truth movement. I wonder if she would respond, not as a “truth leader”, but as an individual truth seeker — albeit an exceptional individual as the author of Where Did the Towers Go?.

        I also want to commend you, Craig, for having not excluded her from your survey list. This inclusiveness is consistent with your other acts of unprejudiced, open-but-active-minded, truth-first reporting on 9/11 as shown on this site. I enjoy all your posts. Thank you.

      • 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.

        • As far as I know, Dr. Wood is not a “no-planer.” She deals with evidence concerning how the towers fell. I’d be more interested if you told me why her evidence isn’t valid.

      • 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.

        [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GME5nq_oSR4&w=560&h=315%5D

        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.

        • Oh, my God, that Conan footage is INCREDIBLE! Not surprising, but revealing nonetheless.

          I find this comment to be an intelligent and thoughtful look at some of the more maligned areas of 9/11 research. I believe, as you do, that we should not be afraid of any area of inquiry – and we certainly shouldn’t accept being bullied away from it.

      • Not only do the media use the same script. One of my personal favourites, Harper of Canada and Howard of Australia on the Iraq invasion – 2003.

  1. My antennae quivered as I heard a Urantia Book facilitator urge us to “get” the false flag nature of the 9/11 attacks. According to this twinkly fellow named Les Jamieson from Pluto, his total immersion in a book of incredible revelations positioned him neatly in the conspiracy camp and opened him up to an amazing epiphany: “Cheney and them done it, not Osommer”!!

    Initially I scoffed, but after accepting the offer of a free UBook from the wonderful Les, I immersed myself and voila!I was a card-carrying member of what my wife terms a “cult” but is only an impassioned group of true believers who make up the wild, wooly 9/11 Truth Movement. We really have emerged as merely a fringe crowd but, oh the hilarity of our bunch makes an Everclear Punch party at the local frat house seem like a bingo game in Deland, Florida.

    Check into this guy Jamieson. He’s not perfect but he has a direct line to the truth and is unwilling to budge an inch in his drive to have you see things his way.

  2. Mr. McKee, to refer to Griffin, Balsamo, and Syed as leaders of the Truth Movement might in some sense be accurate. I think closer to the truth is that they are the misleaders of it. My best guess is that 2 cases are about money. To me, the third is one of the best examples I’ve ever seen that being a good and intelligent person is no defense against the lure of a cult. Often it makes it even worse. You’re dreaming, sir.

    • I explained quite clearly what I meant by the term “truth leaders.” It’s impossible to arrive at a list of “leaders” without making somebody mad. One person’s infiltrator is another’s hero. That’s why I chose not to filter the list of names in advance but rather to approach many people who have gained a certain profile within the movement. I was interested in a broad cross section of views, not just ones from people I agree with.

      For example, I sent my question to David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, and Frank Legge – all of whom continue to offer the bizarre opinion that a 757 ploughed into the side of the Pentagon and promptly disappeared. Only Chandler responded, saying, “Not interested. Please stop writing.” I approached Dr. Judy Wood, who declined, and I included an answer from Simon Shack, the creator of September Clues – both controversial figures in their own way. I knew their inclusion would anger certain people but I didn’t care. People can make up their own minds about what research they find credible. I don’t believe in censoring in advance. I’m not afraid of hearing ideas that some find objectionable.

      As for the names you mentioned, I believe all three have made significant contributions to the cause, and all have helped me to understand 9/11 better. As for money, what is wrong with Mr. Griffin selling his books? Any suggestion that he’s in it only for the cash is not credible. I’m interested in the results of his work, not the state of his finances.

  3. I wanted to comment on Judy Wood because I think it is important to sift the BS from the honest effort.

    I have discussed this with quite a few supporters of her theories, and none of them seem all that smart. As far as needing to buy her book in order to assess the core issues, this is not so.

    I would point out that merely looking closely at the photo at the top of this page is enough to debunk Wood. Do you see the amount of partial box columns and other steel parts in this pic?
    Some 90 percent of the steel and other heavy metal that the towers were constructed of were blasted beyond the footprints of each tower. Photographic evidence shows this {as above} as well as the FEMA Debris Field Map.

    Obviously the this huge amount of steel was not “dustified”. Wood’s theories have been debunked in several highly reasonable scientific papers.

    Obviously this is not the page to go into a long debate on this issue. But I think it important to identify the charlatans of the 9/11 issue, as it is the only path to the truths of this issue.
    ww

    • Dear Mr. Hybridrogue,

      Judging a book by its cover, I see. I love how your book review comes from the lofty position of not owning it, not borrowing it, not stealing it, and otherwise not having it to read. Bravo!

      Also, you seem to accept the framing from others with regards to “dustification of steel” and misapply that to the box columns.

      The word directed in the DEW acronym should be contemplated more thoroughly. If your energy beam (from one of potentially many DEW devices) is focused into a narrow cone [up and then down], not only could you aim it away from the exterior box columns, but you could also miss the very spires that supported the DEW device(s) during much of the demolition until other devices lower in the structure took over. You would leave the exterior box columns in tact for milli-seconds longer so that they can mask and contain the mischief happening within the tower space, before nano-thermite blows the bolts connecting them together and it all came tumbling down.

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

      A second issue of steel dustification is that the falling debris supposedly acted not only as a pile driver on the towers, but also as the leveling agent of both WTC-3 and just the main edifice of WTC-4 (while miraculously sparing WTC-4′s North Wing despite being within the same radius of falling crap.) The roof of the WTC-4 North Wing provides an indication of the amount of material that fell… and it was insufficient to account for what was observed.

      In truth, I don’t want to go into “dustification of steel”, because I believe this to be another purposeful misframing of the concepts, just like “space beams” are a misframing of DEW. DEW can be space-based or spire-based. The massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore holes in WTC-5, and WTC-4 main edifice being leveled at line with its North Wing all could still be candidates for space-based DEW, were WTC-4, WTC-5, or WTC-6 to come under any serious scrutiny.

      Instead, I prefer to dwell on the dustification of content, like concrete, drywall, office & bathroom furnishings, humans, etc. You see, conventional explosives (and super-dooper nano-thermitic offshoots) rely on sudden and massive changes in air pressure from the explosion to turn its structural victims into smaller pieces. Such air pressure changes get transmitted through the structure and can be picked up by seismic readings. Not on 9/11. Moreover, turning structural victims into smaller pieces is one level of logistics, while the logistics changes by several orders of magnitude to turn them into dust without blowing chunks at great speeds miles from the detonation point. Don’t get me wrong, chunks were blown laterally, but not to the expected extent that air pressure changes to achieve dustification would suggest.

      Have you read about “Active Denial Systems”? One such system beams energy at a specific frequency at its human/animal targets. Due to the frequency of the beam, it doesn’t penetrate very far below the skin, but far enough to give the target the impression their skin is being burned.

      Tweak the frequency. Amp up the power. You can get yourself a powerful “microwave” emitter that can turn residual water trapped in content into steam. Its instant rapidly expanding volume “dustifies” the target. Trapped water molecules (or other molecules behaving similarly) is common for concrete, drywall, porcelin, wood, plastic, humans…

      You wrote:

      Wood’s theories have been debunked in several highly reasonable scientific papers.

      I call your bluff. Prove it. Provide the links.

      The most I’ve seen are off-topic paragraph dismissals within papers that have other issues. The Legge-Chandler paper trying to debunk CIT flyover comes to mind.

      David Chandler is a high school physics teacher to whom I personally sent a copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook (with his permission) so that he could give it a fair and balanced book review: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Because he was acting as gate-keeper for Jon Cole who did all those great thermite experiments, I also told Mr. Chandler that as I was paying this book forward for him, so should Mr. Chandler pay-it-forward for Mr. Cole [and/or others in the movement] so that it could be assessed in a serious and scientific manner for the good, the bad, and the ugly. The extent of his book review:

      OK. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. It all ranges from bad to ugly. It was interesting to actually see and try to lift the book. It’s a HEAVY book. Someone put a lot of money into publishing this full color extravaganza thing. I wonder who. I started reading it, found it totally disgusting, and decided I had better things to do with my time.

      I’m not saying that her textbook is perfect or that everything she writes is applicable to 9/11, but Mr. Chandler didn’t write one specific thing to support his “totally disgusting” conclusion. He didn’t even finish it.

      Because of the persistent and consistent smearing of Dr. Wood spanning years, the 9/11 Truth Movement has a preconceived notion of what her textbook contains and are thus hesitant to fork out $44 for something that they’ve prejudged to be disinformation. I thought this too, but was astute enough to realize that all disinformation is built upon a solid foundation of truth. It cannot and should not be thrown out until those nuggets of truth have been mined, refined, and incorporated into the conspiracy-theory-du-jour.

      Two of your sentences re-arranged, Mr. Hybridrogue1:

      As far as needing to buy her book in order to assess the core issues, this is not so. I think it is important to sift the BS from the honest effort.

      Your status of not having Dr. Wood’s textbook certainly sifts the BS from the honest effort. Thank you.

  4. Señor El Once,

    I don’t recall mentioning Mr. Chandler in my remarks here.

    I get this strawman bit every time I encounter a Judy Wood advocate.

    I am quite familiar with scalar beams and harp and much of the rest of it. By gawd I even have a microwave oven right here in my own house.

    First of all let us address the partially melted cars that were some how hit even though miles away according to Wood. A close examination of this claim is proven to be totally false. And yes, if you insist I will go back to my files and give you URLs for what I am saying here. But first my argument on my own.

    Why do we have cropped pictures – and pictorial evidence NOT presented – that Wood had to have been privy to if she had the ones she chose to use to back up here theory?

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

    I will address this particular item in this first post. But want to point out that when one finds one situation misrepresented, it is reasonable to assume that the other issues that person addresses are of equal merit – having none. This is standard jurisprudence.

    [See also: Implausibility of Directed Energy Beam Demolition of WTC, June 2011 PDF]
    [And: WTC Dust Signature Report _051504.1 DPF]

    ww

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

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

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

    I have read some portions of the NIST Reports, but not the whole thing. Have you? Would you turn your argument around and look in the mirror before debunking the NIST Reports? I took a lot of my information from scientists who could assess NIST’s claims better than I. But I DO have the PDFs of the NIST papers, and have checked where these scientists such as Jones, have pointed out what is therein.

    My problem is less with Wood’s theories – she is welcome to them regardless of how misguided I may determine them to be. What irks me is the attacks on the other scientists and engineers by here defenders. In particular I would site Andrew Johnson, who has made repeated spurious charges against both Jones, Griffin and Architects. He made some very serious charges recently concerning the circumstances of the interview at the Press Club by Professor Jenkins, calling it a “hit and run” piece”. He provides a story with absolutely nothing to verify it – we are simply left to take his word for it. If anyone has ever heard or read the transcript of this interview, there is very good reason that Wood supporters would want to characterize it as some sort of hit piece, as her answers and assertions are so jejune as to leave ones jaw on the floor. If we are to assume that Dr. Jenkins somehow hypnotized Judy and drew these answers from her while she was in a state of enchantment, I think we are dealing with some very far out ideas. She gave the ludicrous answers that she did – she is going to have to live with that.
    ww

    • Dear Mr. hybridrogue1,

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Jon Cole and I concur that we consider Judy Wood to be a distraction, a disruption, and one who is promoting theories that are unsupported by evidence and transparently false. We have no interest in discussing her work further.

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

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

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

      You wrote:

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

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

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

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

      Agreed.

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

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

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

      I wrote:

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

      You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Me, too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sorry to disappoint you, but I didn’t watch the video – I only read the transcript. And my opinion is based on Wood’s words alone, not her looks nor how they compare with the “young, photogenic and articulate,” Dr. Jenkins

    This excuse that Wood is “brilliant” – “but {her} mouth can’t keep up with her brains” is simply rhetoric and does not sway me in the slightest.

    “Your admission that you have to take the word of…” I do not do math on the level of physicists, that is the only handicap I have to rely on any questions of scientific merit. I do however possess a highly rational mind and am quite adept at reading comprehension skills. I am a highly trained observer, being a natural born artist both visual and sonic. I have a heightened sense of the imagination – and by that I do not mean “fantasy” – I mean I can visualize and construct within my mind.

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

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

    And you make the point that Andrew Johnson gives “plenty of information,” yes and it is all biased hearsay. And to expect me to take Dr. Wood’s opinion as back-up is simply absurd, as it is her personal ox that is gored by her own horns in that interview…it’s gotta be someone else’s fault that she came off like a twirlybird lunatic – right?

    Now rather than take the rest of your essay point by point, I will simply say this: There is PROVEN physical evidence on nanothermetic materials in the dust samples from WTC. I haven’t seen nor heard of any physical evidence of nuclear radiation that would be considered forensic proof.
    I have heard a lot of theoreticals on many of the issues of this case – and I have heard a lot of criticism of the individuals who HAVE come up with forensic proofs. Even the term “super-duper” is one of these lowbrow digs, rhetorical splatter gaming that tends to put a serious person off. I also find your insinuations that Professor Jones is getting “paid off” to hide the “truth” of nuclear or DEW, as an insult to all thinking participants of the 9/11 investigation. This type of thing is bordering on shill business Mr. Once. All in all I find your arguments tending towards disruption and divisionary tactic.

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

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

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      You are entitled to your opinion.

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

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

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

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

      Steering is not the same thing as hiding.

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

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

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

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

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

  7. To the forum in general, and Señor El Once in particular, I want to post this preemptively so that I can honor my suggestion of giving Mr. Once the last word.

    It is claimed now by the supporters of Wood and Reynolds that Jones is a shill out to hide the facts on “free energy” and specifically that, “Someone must have told him,” about an experiment in Cold Fusion, that Jones purposely ‘debunked’ with one of his own experiments on the topic. It is then asserted that Jones is a shill working for the government to hide the fact that cold fusion is a viable alternative energy source.

    As I expect this to be one of the arguments put forward in MR. Once’s next reply, let me give the facts as they are presented to a candid world and readily available by searching the web.

    “The Trouble with Steven E. Jones’ 9/11 Research.”~Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood

    In this paper Reynolds and Wood write:

    “Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.”

    So it is in fact Reynolds and Wood who are ‘debunking’ the idea of cold fusion. As Jones himself responds:

    “Their statement above is false.

    I led a team at Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility which experimentally studied the original cold fusion, called muon-catalyzed fusion, and demonstrated that fusion does indeed occur very rapidly at room temperature and below. (Other physicists had demonstrated the reality of the room-temperature fusion effect before us.) Indeed, we achieved our best results at liquid hydrogen temps, around 21 Kelvin. A little quantum mechanics explains how this works – the deuterons (or deuteron + triton for higher yields) TUNNEL THROUGH THE COULOMB BARRIER. High temperatures are NOT required for fusion.

    This is not controversial in the physics community, although some may forget about muon-catalyzed room-temperature fusion until one reminds them.

    The same quantum mechanical tunneling occurs for d-d fusion in our metal-catalyzed fusion experiments. Our hypothesis in the late 1980’s was: “Metals catalyze nuclear fusion, and some metals will enhance fusion more than others.” I agree that our results were controversial, as is common at the forefront of science. The unequivocal confirmation of this claim, with 100% reproducibility if you will actually read the papers, came in the late 1990’s and after. The papers are published in peer-reviewed Journals and are referenced in my recent paper and in the table below http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf

    As anyone who can grasp an argument put in plain English can see, not only does Jones not debunk cold fusion, but in fact he gave us an experiment, since repeated by others that shows great promise in the field.

    His response to the Reynolds and Wood essay can be found at:

    http://stj911.org/jones/Jones_Replyto_Reynolds_Wood.html

    I would encourage anyone interested in this debate to read both the essay by Reynolds and Wood, and also Professor Jones’ reply at the above URL.

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

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

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

      You wrote:

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

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

      I did love your quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Thank you for your considerate reply Mr. Once. It is most gracious of you to release me from the bondage, and free my voice.

        However, I have little to say on the matter other than my, perhaps too oblique reference to the Scofield Reference Bible below.

        I was purposely indirect so as to leave me vow in place.

        So, I will spell it out. Scofield was a scoundrel and conman, who fell in with those who recognized his talent for elaborate story telling, and juggling conceptual absurdities. After a bit of hazing, and testing on their part, agents of Rothschild Zionism came in contact with Scofield and groomed him for a large project they had in mind – one that would reframe the New Testament in such a way as to draw the reader into a undue reliance on the Old Testament as a precursor to prove that Jesus ‘fulfilled’ all of the Old Testament requirements for the part of the Messiah.
        I say, “undue” in this reliance, by framing the the importance of the issue of this ‘heritage’ as the prime issue of the New Testament – rather than the actual message that the Nazarene came to deliver.

        I must interject here, that I am not a religionist, and am not making a religious argument here.
        I am explaining my analogy of how I see the Wood book, and the Reference Bible in subject.

        While it may be prejudice on my part to rely on my early impressions of Ms. Wood, I am yet not impressed by anything in this urging that I have to read her book to critique it. I will state clearly here that I am not critiquing her book. I am giving my impressions of who I see Wood to be, from her early career.

        Let it be said, I have been researching this event from the very day it happened. That is based on several things I noticed that morning – but the clincher for me was seeing the first tower being blown to smithereens on television, knowing that there clearly could be no correlation of such total destruction and the airplane crashes – simply physically impossible.

        And this is one point on which I totally agree with Dr. Wood, the use of the term “collapse” is rather Orwellian, given the popular conception of what ‘collapse’ means – even though some have argued that a technical definition of a collapse would cover what happened to the towers.
        And I fault Jenkins for making such disparaging remarks and his reliance on ‘technicalities’ on that head.

        Again, in plain view, the towers blew up, they did not ‘collapse’ in the popular sense of that word.

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

        So all I would ask of anyone who promotes this work to give some indication as to what is said therein, just the beginning of where her argument starts, paces and concludes. I have never read any one who has made even the simplest case for the positive on her work, it all seems to be a case on the negative to her detractors.

        Can I get a witness? Is there no one capable of explaining in some actual rational manner what the significance of hurricane Erin being 200 miles to the east off the coast of NY?
        Can you tackle this one Mr. Once?

        Personally my policy of reaching conclusions is on the scale of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
        But I am not certain of anything at this point – many of the conclusions I have drawn are still open to adjustment, as new compelling evidence is put to my attention. Be patient with me Mr. Once, there are a lot of issues to his case to be resolved to my satisfaction. At this point you haven’t compelled me into an interest in the Wood position.

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

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

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

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

  8. I don’t have a Scofield Reverence Bible.

    But I do have a King James, which I can read on my own using my own mental facilities to form my own opinions about what is therein, without following the path of a charlatan to tell me how to think about it.

    ww

  9. Dear Craig,

    I hope you don’t mind me posting this rather lenghty comment – but since you kindly invited me to participate in your blog’s 9/11 discussions, I’d like to follow-up my original contribution in order to clarify the logic and the gist of my longstanding/ongoing research on the subject of 9/11.

    In order to summarize in a concise manner the body of my research (now bolstered/enriched by the many good members of Cluesforum.info – my research forum), I will playfully pretend that I MYSELF was the Mastermind of the 9/11 psyop. As I go along, I will mention (in brackets) what I consider to be the objective, empirically verifiable FACTS which our – and other’ people’s – research has determined. So, without further ado, here goes:

    WHAT WOULD I DO – IF I WERE THE MASTERMIND OF THE 9/11 PSYOP?
    (…and could rely on the full support of the US gov, the NYC mayor, the news media and whatnot?)

    I would empty the towers of its historical tenants long beforehand (FACT: this was done in 1993 – as documented in Eric Darton’s book “Divided We Stand”- with the pretext of the “Al Qaeda garage bombing”). I would then ‘repopulate’ it with a handful of friendly companies under my control (FACT: most of the alleged WTC victims were purportedly employees of a mere handful of banking firms) and a number of ‘virtual’ companies (FACT: the Allianz group ran a scheme offering virtual office spaces to any company wishing to have a prestigious – yet virtual – business address in the WTC). Next, I would acquire the entire WTC complex and insure it generously for possible terror attacks (FACT: Larry Silverstein did just that, a couple of months before 9/11). I would rig the towers with ultra-safe and fully reliable, conventional demolition explosives – any other option would be foolhardy and way too risky. I would time the “Binladen attacks” on my towers in the early morning hours, so as to facilitate the access blockage of the WTC area – located of course at the very tip of Lower Manhattan (FACT: you couldn’t even get there by subway that morning – as there was an MTA union strike that day affecting the Path Line serving the WTC – as reported by an Italian friend of mine living in NY).

    I would then deploy electromagnetic jamming devices to keep any camera from filming the morning’s events. This is certainly no science-fiction technology (FACT: it is routinely used in modern warfare) and I would certainly make good use it for the purpose of pulling off my mass-deception plan based on fake imagery. With all this in place, at 8:46 AM I would have bomb charges exploding on the top floors of WTC1, up on the North side facing the city. The shape-cutting charges would carve out a 160-feet -wide gash, resembling a (quite cartoonish – but who would notice?) imprint of a 767 BOEING, commercial airliner.

    For the next 102 minutes, I would have my friendly TV networks broadcast a fully prefabricated “Hollywood” movie, featuring a “second commercial airliner” coming in from South, and striking WTC2 on its South side – which would now be comprehensively evacuated (Battery Park and surroundings) with the pretext of the first WTC1 explosion. Then, 17 seconds before the WTC2 explosion, I would send a signal to the Central TV studio to launch a prefabricated 16-second video sequence, showing the “FLIGHT175” approach and strike (FACT: the 16sec video sequence linked below was shown on LIVE TV that day – and is the sum total of “airplane imagery” offered to the world’s TV audience that day ):
    THE 17 SECOND ENIGMA
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2055659#p2055659

    The rest of the TV broadcasts would be smooth sailing: The TV stations would just keep showing for about 100 minutes what looked like “aerial helicopter imagery” featuring a digital model of the Manhattan skyline, with digital smoke gushing out snow white smoke (or pitch black smoke – WHO CARES FOR “FICKLE”, PHOTOGRAPHY ISSUES ANYWAY?) of the WTC towers. The only non-predictable variable – the WIND DIRECTION of the day – would have been easily handled/toggled in the central TV studio on the fly. This was in fact the least of my worries…).

    I would then order my military operatives to carry out a pretty standard military operation: to release a thick smokescreen in order to cover the WTC towers from public view. Once the smoke obscurants enveloped the WTC area, the conventional demolition process could go ahead. NO ONE WOULD THEREFORE BE ABLE TO CAPTURE ON FILM THE ACTUAL DYNAMICS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES – SINCE THE WTC COMPLEX WAS ENVELOPED IN SMOKE. I would then have most witnesses presented in the media reporting “THE TOP of the towers collapsing” – since this was what most New Yorkers would have witnessed/recalled.

    Aughh! Damn it! Those people at Cluesforum figured it al out! I never thought that someone would ever notice that the collapse imagery was totally fake!
    THE CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802

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

    As the Mastermind of the 9/11 hoax, I would now be really pleased with my performance. The vast majority of the inhabitants of this planet still believe they saw REAL IMAGES on TV – on 9/11. Fortunately, very few people are able to see that the ENTIRE BODY OF IMAGERY related to the 9/11 events (made up of the numerous, short“news flashes” endlessly shown on TV) are nothing but brief video clips extracted from an entirely prefabricated Hollywood, blockbuster special fx-riddled movie – featuring extravagant visual deceptions such as fake airplane crashes, fake tower collapses,and last, but not least, shock-and-awe digital imagery of “people jumping from the towers”(FACT: if you put together all the brief – and endlessly recycled – TV news flashes of 9/11 we are all familiar with, they will only just add up to a standard, 100-minute Hollywood-type feature movie!).

    THE FALLING MAN
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=501
    As the Mastermind of 9/11, I’d be proud of my genius move to show these digital “jumpers” – as they would imprint into the public the notion of the WTC towers being full of people trapped in the upper floors – AND raised their anger towards “Binladen and his evil muslim terrorists”!

    All in all, my hoax would turn out to be a roaring success – what with the endless circular debates about the technicalities of the inexplicable WTC collapse (as shown on TV) and the never-ending and mind-numbing controversies around the Pentagon and Shanksville fables. These were of course only diversions used on the day to enable the TV broadcasts to “zap away” from the events in Manhattan – much like ads/commercials function to relieve the TV viewers from the stupid plot of any given TV soap-opera. In the case of 9/11, the Pentagon & Shanksville “commercials” provided the perfect alibi/distraction to fill in the time needed to raise a smokescreen around the WTC, before they demolition explosives were set off.

    As the Mastermind of 9/11, and judging by the endless, confusing and circular debates still raging 10 years on – focusing on diversions such as “the Pentagon, the WTC7, nanothermite, Directed Energy Weapons, Shanksville” and whatnot, I must declare total victory! After all, most people of this world have been fooled into thinking that what they saw on TV on 9/11 was REAL. Very few are ready to accept that every single news clip seen on TV is nothing but an extract of a Hollywood movie produced prior to 9/11!…

    As the Mastermind of 9/11 – would my plan have included killing 3000 people? Naah – no bloody way! I’m not a complete idiot, you know? What a horrid aggravation THAT would be!

    Now, you may ask, what about the 3000 alleged 9/11 victims you have heard of?
    http://septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.htm

    And what about the Ground Zero rubble?
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489

    And what about the “Heroic Firefighters”?
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458

    Thanks for bearing with me. Oh, and by the way, I do still firmly believe there is intelligent life on Earth. Maybe we should ask NASA to help us unearthing it! :O)

    Peacefully yours

    Simon Shack

    • Dear Mr. Shack,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Mr. Shack, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

      • Dear Señor El Once.

        Thanks for your – mostly – positive response to my “9/11 Mastermind” post. Regarding Judy Wood, I am sorry if our opinions diverge – and I can well understand the fascination people may have for her theories. Lest you think that my take on her is purely personal – or is grounded in thin/ or insufficient evidence – you may wish to sift through the numerous discussions we have had about her role over at Cluesforum (just do a forum search for “Judy Wood”).

        As for the imagery of the tower collapses, I well understand your skepticism (it took me a long time to even consider that they were all fake/computer-animated too). – but I would vividly encourage you to read through all 14 pages of our “CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE” thread. I dare trust that you will eventually reach the same conclusions as to their (non)authenticity – given the myriad of problems we have detected over the years, methodically analyzing/ dissecting practically all available tower collapse ‘footage’ and ‘photos’.

        You may also wish to view my “Collapse Animations” page on my website (it is the ‘heaviest’ page of Septemberclues.info, so please give it time to upload all the pics and gifs – click ‘refresh’ if needed). http://septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

        My ‘favorite’ clue as to the phoniness of the collapse-imagery is the way the WTC1 collapse was aired LIVE on CNN – at 10:28AM : The “fortuitious” 18-second zoom-in performed by the seemingly clairvoyant ‘CNN chopper cameraman’ – the protracted zoom motion stopping JUST as WTC1 starts collapsing – is nothing short of hilariously contrived. Anyone is free to think that this extraordinary, lucky shot occured by happenstance – but I have frankly grown weary of giving the benefit of doubt to the endless “coincidences” the 9/11 imagery asks us to buy..

        By the way, your observation regarding the antenna tilt is not correct. I have made a new, simple ‘diagram’ to highlight the issue – as I understand my point was perhaps not clearly illustrated:
        Yellow line parallel with WTC: http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/WTC1%20COLLAPSE%20northview4B.jpg
        I have added the above image to the post which you referred to:
        http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2350864#p2350864

        As for the perps’ reasoning behind this (to fabricate even the collapse imagery), it should emerge to you – after careful, deductive consideration – in all its logic:

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

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

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

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

        Yours truly

        Simon Shack

      • Dear Mr. Shack,

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

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

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

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

        - THE 17 SECOND ENIGMA

        - THE FALLING MAN

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

        - And what about the “Heroic Firefighters”?

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

        - Collapse Animation

        - THE CGI COLLAPSE FOOTAGE

        - And what about the Ground Zero rubble?

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

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

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

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

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

        Yes, I agree. This is an excellent point.

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

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

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

        And it contradicts your third point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Dear El Once,

        I thank you for offering to buy me Judy Wood’s book (no, I am not well off – in fact, the next book I may have to buy would ideally be titled “How to survive for half-a-decade while performing idealistic/intellectual, unpaid full-time labor”). However, I will respectfully decline your offer – out of intellectual honesty. I’ll hasten to add that, lest you think I am myself guilty of intellectual dishonesty (or plain reader laziness), I feel obliged to clarify my stance on this matter – as you sound sincere about your support of Judy Wood’s intellectual honesty. (sorry for the repetitive prose!)…

        Firstly, please know that I have certainly looked into Wood’s thesis – and dedicated to this a significant amount of time. To be sure, her public presentations of her DEW theory rely – predominantly – on the available 9/11 imagery http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4N3Y4Jj6WU which, as you know, I have spent almost half a decade to analyze/dissect, reaching the conclusion that it is all computer-manufactured. I hope you may imagine how difficult it is for me to lend any credence to her thesis – since it is fundamentally based on photo/video material which I deem demonstrably, 100% fraudulent. I have also been communicating on several occasions with Judy’s British colleague of sorts, Andrew Johnson (yet, never with Judy herself). I pretty much stopped trusting Andrew as he teamed up with a certain Richard Hall, author of a novel 9/11 video/thesis which, although APPARENTLY supportive of September Clues, ends up trying to reinstate (in a most convoluted fashion) the authenticity of the LIVE TV footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saw3JT2q9c4 .

        Back to the spectacular collapses seen in the 9/11 imagery. In your opinion, what exactly causes that enormous amount of dust seen in the WTC collapses? Weren’t the WTC buildings mostly made of STEEL? To put this into perspective, here’s a reinforced CONCRETE building being demolished: Do you see much dust being produced in the upper floors – BEFORE they hit the ground? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI So, don’t you think the perps needed someone (like Judy Wood) to “explain” all that ridiculous amount of dust seen in the 9/11 videos – cascading like a snow avalanche (from the top floors!) onto the streets? Does my humble opinion that a smokescreen was raised – BEFORE the WTC demolition charges were set off – make a little more sense to you now – since dust & smoke are pretty much similar to the human eye and – unless you were in a helicopter that day – you would have seen ONLY A LOT OF SMOKE emerging from the WTC area?

        I can only hope you don’t take offence/annoyance with my stance towards Judy Wood – and that you’ll keep looking into the full body of the wider cluesforum.info research – constantly enriched and refined by our many competent/dedicated contributors.

        Kind regards

        Simon Shack

  10. Simon, I applaud your creative way of presenting your case. By himiny, you yourself would make a great script writer in Hollywood.

    Thanks for the entertaining flow of your piece.

    ww

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

    “Bullshit. Your assumption is not reasonable. One situation does not represent the whole. Mistakes happen.”~M. Once

    ________________________

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

    I add to that the state of mind that would make one assessment so contrary to actual reason and observation, is rightfully challenged as it would reflect on other matters. I would assert that claiming the the moon is indeed made of Swiss Cheese, is an indication of fantastical thinking, and would be wary of the judgments on other matters from such an individual.

    Is the “reasoning” pertaining to the cars as extreme as the moon example above? When all aspects are considered? …Yes, I think it is close.

    But if you can, you can let Wood dazzle me by addressing the questions I asked above, and on the next post over {I meant to post it here…sorry}.

    ww

  12. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

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

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

    You wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The book was meant to be validated or debunked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  13. As to the Hutchinson effect, what do you know of this aside from the mention by Wood. The publicly available information on Hutchinson is quite controversial. Aside from the fact that we can take military public announcements with a grain of salt, even reading the yea-sayers, there is much to be said for this effect having very much to do with Hutchinson’s seeming telekinetic abilities. In other words, all of his scrap instruments and such could be said to “put him in the mood for love” – in effect like a “techno-ritual”.

    I like to keep an open mind Mr. Once, just not so open that my brains fall out. I was literally raised on speculative fiction, or Sci Fi, if you will. It was what eventually segued into an interest in history, recognizing that the moment ‘now’ was the linkage point between the genres.

    One critical point I do have is the assumption that the modern nano-milled energetic materials lack the explosive pressure needs to result in the utter disintegration of the non-metallic elements in the buildings.
    I also disagree emphatically that there was a lack of such metallic debris in the aftermath. Such material covered more than 10 acres and beyond the complex as you well know.

    Thank you for taking the time to provide me with the answers and suppositions you have. If I remain dubious it is no reflection on your fine efforts at explanation, it is more as you have said yourself, the fact that it is all speculation at this point. Not all is you know, there are many aspects of the case that prove the government story is a myth and cover-up. As FUN as speculation can be, I see the need to address the problems caused by the Public Relations Regime as more worthy of my concerted attention. Cracking the induced emotional zombie state of the majority of the population is what I am mainly into at the moment.

    As a people, and a society we have come to a critical juncture…”Danger – Danger Will Robinson…”

    Doobiedo, ww

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

      Not much, and agreed it is quite controversial.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • My dear Mr. Once,

        I have no desire to prevent your speculating. I am simply turning down the invitation to join the festivities at this time.

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

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

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

        ww

      • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  14. To Ralph Showman,

    I have had the Urantia book since the late 60s. I have read large segments of it. I have to admit, as a philosopher and theologian, I find the central premise false. Nevertheless, read as speculative fiction it is indeed quite fascinating.

    I do have conversations concerning the book to thank for solidifying views that I had been trying to articulate since I was around 12 years old however. This can be summed up very simply:

    1≡∞ – Paradox divides the whole – there is only ONE which cannot be divided.

    I posit, Ta Panta Nous, an ancient Greek concept that was roundly rejected by the Platonic school of thinking. However I embrace it whole heartedly do to personal experience of the revelatory kind.

    Thanks for mentioning the Urantia book, it has been a long time since I heard mention of it.

    ww

  15. You bring up an interesting point Mr. Wright, that concerning these “Islamic Fundamentalists”.

    What do you know of the origins of this Islamic Fundamentalism?

    I can tell you in a very quick outline that it began as part of the control mechanism of the British Empire during the period of the Raj. It’s a simple game Mr. Wright with a long historical foundation, it is called DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

    In this instance, the most outrageous fanatical segment of the native population is sought out, or created by stealth. It is founded on the Secret Society paradigm. The whole time this is under the control and watchful eye of the conqueror – in this instance the British Empire. Thus the beginnings of what became known as The Muslim Brotherhood.

    Fast forward to this era of Pax Americana and we have the same techniques applied in the creation of both the Taliban and al Qaeda.

    Even the rabid ‘Fundamentalist’ textbooks for the Taliban { “student” in Pashtun} were written and printed in the good ol’ USA.

    The story of al Qaeda – “the Western Toilet” – is even funnier…because that is what the term means in common street Arabic. It’s a long tale, and as you are obviously not interested in real history, I’ll skip it.
    ww

    • @hybridrogue1
      All that trouble to create al Qaeda ,and these suicidal islamic extremists and then not use them. Bit of a waste of time really.

      • Mr. Wright, You say:

        “All that trouble to create al Qaeda ,and these suicidal islamic extremists and then not use them.”

        I certainly did not imply in anyway that these puppet forces are not ‘used’ – and used in a great variety of aspects. They can be vilified in one scenario and made into ‘heroes’ the next. Such as al Qaeda being used as the prime bogeyman to launch the “War on Terror” in 2001, and then hailed as ‘freedom fighters’ in Libya in 2011 > even though they were fresh off the killing fields of Afghanistan fighting US and NATO forces there.

        My assessment of the “suicidal Islamic extremists” manipulated for the 9/11 psyop is that these people were in fact not “suicidal extremists” at all but were in fact mercenaries having no idea that they were to be sacrificed to the ‘Sunnybeech God’ of the Western Empire. If the pre-event antics of some of these characters is taken to account, they were psycho playboys, and druggies more than ‘religious extremists’.

        All part of “Legendeering” by the script writers at central casting.

        The theatrics are absurd, but they work when applied to preconditioned minds.
        ww

  16. Mr. Once,

    You might be interested in the information in this book The Hunt For Zero Point. There is a lot of fascinating things as per exotic energy sources and other items. It is by a journalist who wrote/writes for Jane’s military aircraft review. I think you will find a lot of background material here for your case for the Wood perspective:

    http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/hunt_zeropoint.pdf

    ‘Electrogravitics Systems—An Examination of Electrostatic Motion, Dynamic Counterbary and Barycentric Control’. Also, colloidal,’

    ww

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

    >But things DID go wrong, and were broadcast live to the whole world. Squibs were caught on video, the towers are obviously exploding well beyond the frame of their footprints. Beams are seen flying latterly with great energy. Certainly inexplicable as having anything to do with the aircrashes.~ww

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

    >This question has been adequately addressed thoroughly by the explosive demolition propositions put forth for years now. It was not addressed as a standard implosion, but a top down explosive demo. This is standard fare here.

    Having some fair knowledge of CGI and the efforts it would take to produce such footage, I am highly dubious of this entire scenario. The complex algorithms involved in churning smoke blended with scattered debris is not the simple task you may take it for. And we are talking to the state of CGI ten years ago.

    Having viewed this footage, and hundreds of stills with great care for hundreds of hours, I cannot see any indication it is not authentic full sized real world photography. If it were CGI it would have to have been the finest masters at that time, either Lucus or WETA. Somehow such a proposition seems highly unlikely.

    I’m not buying this at all.

    \\||//

    • Dear Hybridrogue,

      Regarding the “complex algorithms involved in churning smoke blended with scattered debris” – please check out this 1996 Hollywood movie – “Independence Day” – by Roland Emmerich:

      Now, we are talking about 1996 – 5 years before 2001. Also, as you can see at 0:58 in the above video clip, “Independence Day” featured a (very quick) TOP DOWN collapse of the Empire State building. You may think this is just a casual coincidence – and other people may think it is some sort of Hollywood-induced ‘predictive programming’. Either way, to say that “it wasn’t possible to produce such imagery in 2001″ is obviously a statement made out of pure ignorance – and your self-professed “fair knowledge of CGI” can therefore instantly be downgraded to “poor historical knowledge of CGI”. Now, don’t get fooled by the fact that such Hollywood sceneries (such as Independence Day) are often set in dark, night scenes – for obvious “dramatic” effect; the very same algorithms used back then were perfectly able to simulate a daytime, catastrophic scenery in Manhattan under bright blue skies..

      More importantly, please know that THIS is what was shown live on NBC – in 2001:
      http://septemberclues.info/images/WTC2%20COLLAPSE%20NBC%20yellow%202.gif

      And here are 2 loops extracted from an alleged “amateur video” (credited to one Rick Siegel – who even made a ‘conspiracy documentary’ by the title of “911 EYEWITNESS”):
      Rick Siegel LOOP1:
      http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/WTC%201%20COLLAPSE%20SIEGEL%201.gif
      Rick Siegel LOOP2
      http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/WTC%201%20COLLAPSE%20SIEGEL%202.gif

      Do these videos look REAL to you? Yes – I do expect a response from you to this simple question!

      In fact, what you – and everyone – needs to be aware of, for many years after 9/11, the above video quality was all we had of the 9/11 events. Having closely ‘monitored’ the available 9/11 imagery for half a decade, I can tell you that up to about 2006/7, the sort of piss-poor imagery linked above was ALL WE HAD! Only in 2010 (in fact, exactly on February 11) did some higher definition 9/11 imagery suddenly emerge…Don’t believe me? Check this out:
      http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sept%20clues%20research/LIESdailymailFEBRUARY11_2010.jpg

      Basically, we are to believe that ABC had to force the NIST people (the government-appointed ‘scientists’ behind the official pancake-collapse theory) to release their image archives of 9/11 with a FOIA act!!! Ha Ha Ha ! Isn’t that just marvellously hilarious? Please know that I suspect all TV media-networks – but ABC in particular – to harbor the folks responsible for the fake imagery of 9/11.

      Lastly, dear Hybridrogue – I thank you for praising me (in another post of yours) for being entertaining. I never meant to bore anyone with my research! :O)

      • There is only one problem with this Mr. Shack, the imagery that you just posted – the WTC imagery is in no sense ‘cinematic’ as such as this. It is an entirely different animal.

        You should be informed that I have worked with Pat McClung, the special effects director on the film INDEPENDENCE DAY on many a film project. I am certainly not saying it was “impossible to create such imagery in 2001″ – what I am saying is the 9/11 imagery does not match CGI at all. They have none of the ‘cinematic’ aspects you keep alluding to.

        As a professional special effects artist in Hollywood for many years, I have developed a very good eye for judging very subtle aspects of visual images, noting the types of artifacts that the layman just isn’t going to notice.

        Now regardless of the variety of qualities of the videos from the 9/11 event – they all have a sense of depth and weight – a ‘solidity’ that I still see missing in the CGI samples you compare them to, and other work I am very familiar with – and are in fact still not PERFECT in today’s CGI products.

        I am not going take this argument any further as I see it as a total waste of my time.

        ww

  18. To Mr. Shack, or Mr. Once,

    As per the collapses of the towers being CGI – the point of the helicopter video being somehow coincidentally advantageous I disagree, the zoom in may have caught the close up just as the towers began to explode, but was not positioned to follow the explosions down – which is why the network switched to another fuller view moments later; to follow the the area where we could see the full scene.

    If the helicopter hadn’t zoomed in and focused when done, would have gotten the better shot of the whole sequence. It is an opinionated assertion to claim it was done on purpose to catch the action. I remember seeing the scene and thinking, awe too bad, they missed the best part; a distant shot of the whole collapse. I would wager the photographer felt the same way too.
    \\][//

    • Dear Hybridrogue,

      You wrote:
      “If the helicopter hadn’t zoomed in and focused when done, would have gotten the better shot of the whole sequence. It is an opinionated assertion to claim it was done on purpose to catch the action.”

      Not so, Hybridrogue, not so. The entire WTC1 collapse was shown flawlessly on LIVE TV:

      This is the 18-second zoom-in shown by CNN. As you can see, the zoom motion stops JUST as WTC1 starts collapsing:
      http://septemberclues.info/images/WTC1CNNcollapse1.gif

      This is the sequence that immediately follows – in the LIVE CNN broadcast.
      http://septemberclues.info/images/WTC1CNNcollapse2.gif

      We are therefore asked to believe that the incredibly alert CNN producer managed to promptly switch between 4 different cameras JUST as the 18-second+ collapse took place… just as it happened – LIVE !!!

      The “18-second+ collapse???” – you might ask…Didn’t we hear for YEARS that WTC1 collapsed in “11 seconds”??? Yeah, well – NIST somehow has it at “11 seconds – and so had the thousands of architects and engineers at A&E for Truth”. I wondered why! So, I wrote to Richard Gage’s website to inform him that CNN showed an 18-second+ collapse (his A&E website featured a very detailed illustrated article analyzing, second by second, the WTC1 collapse – for a total of 11 seconds). I waited for a few weeks – and finally got a response…from Richard Gage’s webmaster – who basically said : “Thank you for pointing out this fact – we have now removed that article from our site.”

      You’ve got to admire A&E’s fair and scientifically honest good manners ! ;-)

      • You didn’t understand my comment Mr. Shack. I am looking at it from the camera operators point of view in the helicopter. I still assert the camera person was zooming in unaware of the moment, not to catch the action as it began. But would have considered it more useful footage, from that perspective to have remained on the long shot.

        You state:

        “We are therefore asked to believe that the incredibly alert CNN producer managed to promptly switch between 4 different cameras JUST as the 18-second+ collapse took place… just as it happened – LIVE !!!”

        This is hyperbole Mr. Shack, and I feel it is jejune as well.

        Yes, a TV control room can juggle many screen shots at one time, the director in the room is a professional and the good ones are as adept as a musician with this instrument. Two seconds to decide on segue is not and exceptionally quick response in determining to follow the collapse wave by switching screens, when it went out of the helicopter footage’s frame.

        I also get the sense that you realize this in that you turn to a more excited form of rhetoric going into such passages.

        For a single critique of one of your photos on the site with the Giff animations. The last still shot with the arrows showing the direction of sunlight. If this is an example of your visual acuity, let me just say that you fail miserably, or you already know what I mean and are being disingenuous {I’m having a hard time getting a handle on what you are all about here..}

        At any rate, the whole mistake is in the fact that the building in the foreground is in full sunlight without a plume of smoke half a mile high just above it. The buildings in the background are lit brighter by the reflective sunlight off of the water in the foreground to them. High above them, cut off in this frame is that plume of smoke shadowing the right side of the buildings- as opposed to the foreground building receiving direct sunlight. In other words the lighting in this photo has no problems whatsoever. You are making it up.
        ww

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

    I owe you an apology.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Dearest El Once,

      I used the uncompromising (and naturally off-putting) “100%” word to describe my assessment of the 9/11 videos fraudulent nature. While I fully understand such a statement is, shall we say, “asking for trouble” due to its challenging/presumptuous undertones, there is little I can do about it. I have now analyzed practically every single (alleged) video frame and (alleged) still photograph related to 9/11. I have encountered countless problems with this material – problems ranging across a wide number of technical/ optical/ photographic/ logical/ physical/ and comparative considerations – over a timespan of almost 5 years of methodical research.Now, even if some of my analyses (freely available and peer-reviewable online) may contain flaws and opinable issues, I can only ask for people to point them out – on the basis of an adequate understanding and perspective of ALL of the aforementioned problems. To this day, I have not come across any knowledgeable criticism (or, as popularly called,”debunking”) of my work. I am tranquilly awaiting for a serious, well-documented critique to commence. It still hasn’t – but when it starts – I will be happy to tackle every single well-formulated challenge to my longstanding research.

      • And just to avoid any misunderstandings: Am I driven by anger? Do I have a vested interest in doing what I am doing? No. You might say that I’m driven by disgust – the utter disgust of knowing that people like Rupert Murdoch (just to name ONE of them) are still hailed as a successful businessman by many – and is still walking freely on this planet, virtually unchallenged by the people and – much less – by the International War Crimes Tribunal (whatever justice that phony institution is meant to uphold). To be sure, I’m not an easily offended guy. But I certainly resent anyone passing a negative judgment on me and my endeavours – BEFORE even tackling Mr.Murdoch – or, to name another weasel, Mr. Henry Kissinger – who OBVIOUSLY must be fully informed about the 9/11 False-Flag Operation. I feel uncomfortable to share this planet with this sort of individuals. That’s all.

      • 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.

  20. I will answer the last comment directed at me by Mr. Shack where he more or less demands that I make an assessment of yet more videos. This despite the fact that I have already stated I consider the effort a waste of time.

    So I will make my answer simply, NO I will not. And part of this answer is tempered with a bit of anger at the suggestion that those who fail to recognize your self purported “brilliance” as “asses”

    Take your yada up with Mr. Once, he is willing to play your game.
    ww

    • Mr Hybridrogue,

      I will not waste your time anymore. I was under the mistaken impression that you were interested to entertain a dialogue with me on the subject of the fake 9/11 imagery. Have a nice one.

  21. On CGI

    Let me just make some general remarks about the field of special effects cinema, and how it trains the eye of the practitioner.

    The prime motivation is simple, “Does it look real?”

    The next question is, “If not, why not?”

    Now without going through the entire history of the field, let me say that there have been many ingenious techniques throughout the time to create ‘believable’ special effects. All of these techniques have some form of ‘Artifact’ that give the trick away. Blue screen was somewhat convincing for the general audience for some time. Traveling matte techniques flourished through several generations of combinations of techniques for it’s improvement. Yet this endeavor came to a general halt with the advent of CGI. CGI has become the high point in visual realism, and yet..

    And yet there is an aspect to it that can be sensed. It is something hard to articulate, but it is similar to the – what I shall term ‘fatigue’ of digital audio. The music may sound “pristine” to a listener who hasn’t known high fidelity in the analog realm – there is something missing in the waveform, because it is made up of digital information rather than the smooth continuance of an analog signal. There is also something “brittle” added to the sound for the same digital reason.

    And even yet, these linguistic explanations fall short, for the same reasons as these media fall short: What is like is not.

    So in using the terms, “fatigue” or “brittle,” I recognize that they are terms that only catch the essence of what I am trying to say, but cannot say directly. I can only say that there is more to it than simply the visual itself – something is “felt” intuitively in the interface between the visual information and the subtle processing by the mind/brain. Even though it is not as glaring as the ‘hiss’ of analog tape, there is this sensation of something ‘else’ being present.

    To close, all I can say is that CGI, as amazing as it is, has this artifact that bothers the senses of acuity, and whether one can ‘get it’ or not is rather the same as trying to explain faith in some theocratic sense. All I can say is that when I see CGI, even as it has evolved to the point it was in the film ‘Avatar’, I can tell it is CGI.

    ww

    • Dear Hybridrogue,

      Since you kindly responded – with a number of good considerations which I certainly can relate to
      and which I fully share and approve – having worked predominantly as a sound technician for music/film soundtrack recording for the last couple of decades. I am also old enough to have experienced the transition – both in the film/photo and audio domains – from analog to digital (my mezzo-soprano mum even recording her first Haendel aria on a wax record !) while at age 12, I and my brothers were creatively cutting up/editing our dad’s Super8 family films. I have also worked several years as a semi-professional motorsports photographer – developing my own film rolls – and spending far too many hours in darkrooms…Since the digital era came upon us, I have fought endless technical/artistic ‘battles’ to recapture/emulate in digital formats what I like to call the superior “warmth” of both analog film and audio.

      But I digress. My point is, simply put, that I can fully appreciate your statements, such as:

      “All I can say is that when I see CGI, even as it has evolved to the point it was in the film ‘Avatar’, I can tell it is CGI.”

      As a matter of fact, so do I. We probably just may have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of the 9/11 imagery – as I guess it is just your word against mine. With more time and research, I am sure you’ll realize that the problems to be found in the 9/11 imagery go far beyond pure technicalities such as those you mention – and can oft be detected (by the layman or even a child) by using logic and plain common sense. I hope you won’t feel I’m wasting your time in suggesting a couple of more links for your consideration. You may always decide not to comment on them:

      Undebunkable Sepclues
      http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961

      The “Jumpers”
      http://septemberclues.info/jumpers.htm

      Sincerely yours

      Simon Shack

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      Your posting on CGI is absolutely correct. I agree.

      Mr. Shack thanks you for summarizing so wonderfully why there is even a September Clues and the clues forums. When CGI or photoshopping are employed, there can indeed be artifacts. All the more so when the digital artist is a wanna-be-professional, sloppy, or rushed, or when algorithm of the off-the-shelf software aren’t refined or aren’t enabled. September Clues et al have discovered the artifacts in digital images used to depict 9/11 and tell the story the government wanted told.

      I can’t tell you how it makes me feel even more so like a cow because I have to chew like cud yet again lots of information that I thought I had digest correctly. Thanks to Mr. Shacks enlightening forums, I viewed Dr. Wood’s work in a different light. She was duped by some of the images, and she was probably not aware of the extent of their tainting.

      A specific example of how my heart is being let down. From the images given her, Dr. Wood made a convincing argument that maybe there weren’t hot spots. I recall one image taken from a higher vantage point that had rubble piles on the left and the right and a giant puddle of water an inch or so deep in between giving the impression that the whole area had been flooded with a good rain or a good massive hosing. Firemen were standing all over the piles and even in the puddle with their rubber boots, as if they were at a morning meeting and listen for their job assignments. Dr. Wood’s contribution was that if there were indeed these unquenchable extremely hot hot-spots, it would have turned that water from other wet areas as well as this into steam. The steam would have been everywhere, obscured the views, even endangered the firemen.

      Now, thanks to Mr. Shack, I slap my forehead with my hand when thinking on that (possibly) tainted image. The standing water was probably digitally inserted, and maybe even all of the heroic firemen seemingly called to assembly. I think an America flag was proudly waving somewhere in view. It was a distant shot that didn’t show their faces well, but good enough to see that few of the (pixel) firemen were wearing protective breathing gear although most had something hanging around their neck.

      My stomach is burping up lots of cud. Mr. Shack has provided a key to unlocking where Dr. Wood’s “thick, heavy, extravagant use of color” textbook with over 500 images might sneak in its disinformation: tainted images that sometimes take a professional digital artist (like Mr. Shack’s forum) to discover the incriminating artifacts.

      As for your February 2, 2012 at 8:55 pm posting to Mr. Shack:

      I will answer the last comment directed at me by Mr. Shack where he more or less demands that I make an assessment of yet more videos. This despite the fact that I have already stated I consider the effort a waste of time.

      So I will make my answer simply, NO I will not. And part of this answer is tempered with a bit of anger at the suggestion that those who fail to recognize your self purported “brilliance” as “asses”

      Take your yada up with Mr. Once, he is willing to play your game.

      Mr. HybridRogue1: tsk, tsk. Two data points on you appear on the horizon through which a casual observer might be able to draw an unflattering line with respect to your open-mindedness and your objectivity.

      The fog around point A is you letting your emotions control your actions. If a pass/fail test exists with respect to recognizing Mr. Shack’s self purported “brilliance”, it would be based on an objective evaluation of the linked work that demonstrates it (or not). Point A is that you childishly refuse to “make an assessment of yet more videos.” Thus, you can be graded as neither “not-an-ass” nor “an ass”, because your letter grade is an “I” for Incomplete” or Ignorant.”

      Point B related to my attempts to raise the discussion on Dr. Wood’s textbook by… [*cough*]… having people read Dr. Wood’s “thick, heavy, extravagant use of color” textbook with over 500 images that we can now pore over and speculate what might be tainted, thereby separating the wheat from the chaff and the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation. Unfortunately, this was also a realm that you seemed reluctant to enter to overcome you ignorance, fixing Point B in a fixed location.

      In this manner, points A and B get connected with a trend line by the casual reader.

      Of the two data points, point A won’t cost you money to do something about, but point B will.

      It should be noted that Mr. Shack’s informational rabbit holes burp up cud from our cow-like stomachs that we’ll need to chew on all sorts of 9/11 topics (not just my trick ponies) that many of us thought well-digested, particularly if imagery were used in the argument. (Curse you, Mr. Shack!)

      Because I don’t relish being the sole duped useful idiot on any of these topics and want to be either set straight or vindicated, I do sincerely hope that you will become part of the discussion and will participate from an informed level (e.g., not ignorance), Mr. HybridRogue1.

      • Dear El Once,

        I just received today a link to this quite superb article which sums up – in a few remarkably concise and engaging paragraphs – just about everything which I believe happened on 9/11.

        HIGHLY recommended article – by Mr. Stewart Ogilby. A must read:
        http://bigeye.com/911_urban_renewal_with_a_twist.htm

        Lately, I have come under the distinct impression that the full truth of 9/11 – and the inevitable prosecution of its culprits – is fast becoming a much more realistic ‘wishful thought’ to entertain! :O)

  22. In answer to both Mr. Shack and Mr. Once,

    Let me remind both of you, that I have spent the last ten years studying all of these videos you mention. There have been but few occasions when I was struck with the idea that there had been digital manipulations in any of these. One being the Nauday {sp.} Brothers film. That being said, the bulk of the video never drew such a response.

    Since it seems that just about any supposition is fair game for speculation, and as virtually ANYTHING could possibly be true, let us go even further out in our ideas of what could be the REAL TRUTH of what happened on 9/11.

    Let us suppose that the Islamist views are correct, that indeed Allah is the one true god, and he is on the side of his true believers, that in fact the laws of physics were set aside on that beautiful morning in New York City so that Allah’s work could be accomplished by confounding the infidels.
    Let us further suppose that in his building rage Allah himself put his giant invisible foot down to crush this entire den of inequity, the World Trade Center.

    Yes, lo and behold Allah stomped the towers down with his mighty and divine foot, after throwing airplanes at the buildings like darts.

    It may take a lot of theological forbearance to accept such a scenario – yet who are we mere mortals to say what is truly impossible and what is not?

    Beyond this let me say, that there are legions of complexities involved with the proposition that all of the videos of the event are digital fakes. I will not list them because it would be a list that could go on for hundreds of pages, and take endless hours of contemplation to consider.

    Let me end by asking why.

    Why this evangelism for this particular angle on the subject? The both of you remind me of Jehovah’s Witnesses standing on my doorstep refusing to let the matter rest.
    It is such ‘religious fervor’ that first raises my hackles. You should both recognize that I have other interests on the 9/11 subject to pursue besides those fitting your own agendas.

    You may be absolutely right, and I may be absolutely wrong – that is one of the risks one takes in following one’s own muse.

    Let it be.

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      You aren’t the only one who has studied the videos. Just because only a few instances of fakery struck you, doesn’t mean there aren’t more. Maybe they should be revisited. That is all that was asked of you.

      I don’t really care whether you do or don’t. Except you’ll have little ability to get me to believe anything different unless you help me discover and expose the errors (or truth) in this. Except that if you don’t make a earnest effort, it’ll be the hole in your flank that I’ll continually put the pointy-toe of my cowboy boots in and twist.

      I’ve made the Allah argument before. You didn’t take it far enough. The all-powerful Allah argument is essentially the OCT. If so, why did America end up persecuting Muslims? Instead, we should have been changing our religion to that of Islam. Because those in the govt didn’t and didn’t advocate it (Islam) either, we get a clue as to why it (the OCT) was wrong.

      Beyond this let me say, that there are legions of complexities involved with the proposition that all of the videos of the event are digital fakes. I will not list them because it would be a list that could go on for hundreds of pages, and take endless hours of contemplation to consider.

      A likely story. (*Written in a tone sure to piss off*)

      A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. You give up before even filling out one page or burning one our of contemplation.

      I, too, find “the proposition that all of the videos of the event are digital fakes.” This is a hook that hasn’t been set deep in my gill to reel this useful idiot in. However, the evidence of video fakery that is brought forth, is convincing. I’m compelled to ask the question why would even pictures of the rubble be fodder for digital enhancement? Probably for the same reasons a tight security blanket was placed around the WTC right from the first day: to distract us and hide what they were really doing. And this is what puts the saddle back on my milli-nuclear pony.

      You ask: “Why this evangelism for this particular angle on the subject?”

      The angles in question from my perspective are video fakery, milli-nukes, and DEW.

      I seek truth.

      I see how 9/11 has been used against us, taken us to war, trampled the Constitution, and got even Christians thinking the most un-Christian, immoral things.

      If we don’t explore the mechanisms deployed against us — particularly the media –, they’ll use it again and again.

      Every once in a while, I step back and ask if what I’m doing will really matter. Who’s to say if the bit encoding of my words on various storage medium will ever survive for another generation to even access and read.

      I do it for my kids. For any kids they may have. For my God which I hold as synomous with Truth and my judgment day.

      • “What is Truth?” said jesting Pilate…he would not stay for an answer.

        Every debate is grounded on these fundamental questions, whether the conscious mind recognizes this or not. These questions are, “Who am I? – “Where did I come from?” – “How did I get here?” – and “Where am I going?” Therefore much is revealed in the subtext of our dialogs. Our insecurities are revealed, our compensations to deal with such are revealed. Our core epistemology is revealed within a very short time.

        It is in deconstructing such dialog, of our own as well as others, that we come to understand the essence of our communication as a dialog about the sense of self and other. Understanding our own motivations is more or less successful in as far as we consider making our conscious mind aware of our subterranean thoughts.

        This may sound like attempting the impossible, as the ‘science’ of psychiatry has proclaimed that the ‘subconscious mind’ is inaccessible but through their rigid form of orthodox therapy. This is an empty dogmatic proposition. We have as much access to our thinking as we are courageous enough to face. We lock dark secrets in closets ourselves to avoid the pain of remembering. It is merely a psychological game of ‘peekaboo’, that can be overcome with adult supervision – our own – when we choose to drop the juvenile conditioning pressed upon us from the outside. As a society we are conditioned to be ‘afraid of our own thoughts’, “How could you EVEN think like that?” and this backhanded question/indictment is brought down on our heads as children in all manner of situations growing up. It goes hand in hand with being told to shut up, sit down at that desk and do what you are told.

        This is a structure that creates a pathological society. Growing up in such a society is to be ever coerced into adjusting to such inane compliance with ‘authority’. Going along to get along, and developing a linked sausage-mind of a beancounter. The resulting neurosis, is easily devolved into psychosis on to deep psychopathy. To confuse ‘domestication’ with ‘civilization’ is the epistemological ‘sin’ of this present paradigm.

        There is much to learn about the Pathology of Political Power, yet for as long as I have studied it I still refer back to Orwell, as he articulated and displayed it in his novel 1984. One must not confuse money and wealth with the singularity of the lust for power, the others are attendant, but not the central focus – the point of power is power, having it and putting it to practice.

        Money and wealth are just pleasant trappings to the lust for power over other human beings. It is this addiction to power that the average human being cannot begin to imagine, as for the most part they have given away there imaginings to have somebody else’s dream, while watching TV or being entertained in some almost constant manner. And this is the spell I speak to when I say that the majority is enchanted. Their boats and ships have slipped their moorings and they are adrift in a sea of fate, their course charted by hands they cannot even imagine exist.

        WE may set up beacons and lighthouses, but there is often the thick rolling fog of public relations to veil the lights, and choppy seas to distract them with fear and hysterical moments of panic. The system provides the strategy of tension and the audience is tense. The system offers the glimpse of a cute fuzzy baby animal and the audience is sedated. And the carrot and stick go round and round like clockwork. And the audience goes round and round in this futile dance leading to an abyss.

        What will become of the clover, the birdsong, and the buzz of insects I know not.~ww

  23. I guess it’s time for the No-Plane Theater hour.

    Perfect timing, with me showing up talking about real evidence and all.

    There were planes at the towers. The second one was caught on live TV, with hundreds of people WHO WERE ALREADY STARING UP AT THE BURNING NORTH TOWER.

    The planes were pressurized and loaded with fuel traveling at a reported 600mph. They aren’t “hollow aluminum tubes”.

    The biggest proof that the “no plane at the towers” disinfo op is an op, is that we’re supposed to believe they were able to rig a sophisticated real time, CGI animation for live TV from different and opposing angles, but they had to wait 6 months to LEAK, not officially release, a set of 5 grainy frames of an alleged 757 (minus it’s shadow) and then another almost identical grainy video from another almost identical angle over four years later. The second video of course was released after supposed truth members spent years trying to convince people the pentagon attack is a honeypot and they will release “clear video” of the pentagon attack.

    I think the “no-plane at the towers” operatives were put in place to muddy the waters of the genuine “no-impact” events (ie the pentagon and shanksville) and the efforts of researchers and the evidence they’ve uncovered.

    An example would be when a pentagon attack researcher/disbeliever would argue with the anonymous subversive, “Killtown”, and say, “Well, all those witnesses at the towers saw the plane hit”. He would say something like, “well what about all those witnesses who say they saw the plane hit the pentagon?”. This is completely devoid of any real similarity, as the people were already staring up at the towers, while almost all the witnesses at the pentagon were caught off guard, in an area where commercial airliners fly over all day.

    The idea is to keep us arguing. Keep us debating. Keep us marginalized. Keep real evidence mired in pseudo conversations alongside bullshit put out by anonymous operatives posing as researchers who are merely seen as theorists.

    • Dear Mr. Marquis,

      When considering your flyover evidence and the minimal aircraft debris at the Pentagon, you effectively argue “no plane” in terms of wreckage. As part of this, you confidently state “no missiles.”

      When I consider the placement of the construction trailer supposedly housing a generator, the linear path of destruction through the Pentagon, the few images of that construction trailer, and the proven evidence by the “No-Plane Theater hour” (September Clues) of the manipulation of 9/11 imagery, I object to missile launched from the trailer being taken off the table by your confident statement.

      Your statements against “no planes” at the WTC appears similar to the missile confidence statement. You wouldn’t be attempting to mislead us? Case in point, you write:

      The planes were pressurized and loaded with fuel traveling at a reported 600mph. They aren’t “hollow aluminum tubes”.

      This speed at sea level in heavy resistive air exceeds the maximum rated speed of the air craft for high altitude in thin air. The salient point is that if such speeds were involved, a real aircraft would have been hard to control and probably would have suffered structural failure prior to reaching the towers.

      Compared to the towers’ steel walls over-designed for massive forces, an aircraft designed to be light does is indeed more or less resemble a hollow aluminum tube.

      Had Physics much in high school or college?

      The second [aircraft] was caught on live TV, with hundreds of people WHO WERE ALREADY STARING UP AT THE BURNING NORTH TOWER.

      Yes, you should review the various miraculous clips of the second aircraft that was caught (almost) live and broadcast on the telly. You’ll see not only wasn’t it live, but also that it was only one shot, that it was delayed 17 seconds, and that it had issues. You’ll also discover the other shots introduce discrepencies with the first and the others in terms of flight path and rendering. The salient point is the video manipulation of the 9/11 footage is proven. In fact, we shouldn’t even be arguing this, because it is an open secret that control of the media and message is a military objective.

      The hundreds of people you mention are in question. Certainly, there were hundreds who didn’t see or hear a damn thing while STARING UP AT THE BURNING NORTH TOWER, … until of course later they saw the footage repeated repeated repeated repeated on the telly as cognitive dissonance gets cranked into high gear.

      You write:

      The biggest proof that the “no plane at the towers” disinfo op is an op, is that we’re supposed to believe they were able to rig a sophisticated real time, CGI animation for live TV from different and opposing angles, but they had to wait 6 months to LEAK, not officially release, a set of 5 grainy frames of an alleged 757 (minus it’s shadow) and then another almost identical grainy video from another almost identical angle over four years later. The second video of course was released after supposed truth members spent years trying to convince people the pentagon attack is a honeypot and they will release “clear video” of the pentagon attack.

      I’ve bolded the words that you misframe. It was not real time. The closes shot to being live was delayed 17 seconds. Footage from the “different and opposing angles” were broadcast through the course of the day and week.

      As for the second part of your statement regarding 5 grainy frames of a 757 that I assume you refer to the Pentagon plane, why do you inappropriate conflate the methods used to perpetrate the hoax at two different locations? Why don’t you speculate why other Pentagon footage was never released. Maybe none of them could be easily doctored to show a plane (that wasn’t 100 feet too high) and to not show the streak of a missile from the construction trailer.

      You wrote:

      The idea is to keep us arguing. Keep us debating. Keep us marginalized. Keep real evidence mired in pseudo conversations alongside bullshit put out by anonymous operatives posing as researchers who are merely seen as theorists.

      I agree.

      How do we separate the real evidence from the bullshit?

      The first step is to review all the evidence, even that which you prejudge to be bullshit (e.g., September Clues, Dr. Wood). Get on the same page, as it were. Mine it for nuggets of truth. Form your own opinions.

      And consider it a red flag and an attempt at a skillful wave-off when statements from “leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement” try to derail its value without going into specifics and while revealing a high level of ignorance.

    • Mr. Marquis,

      Excuse me sir, but your dismissive “No-planer Theater hour” line is rather lame. We are now in 2012, and I believe any serious 9/11 researcher has come to terms with the TV FAKERY issues (which only worn-out, old-fart gatekeepers keep associating with the derisive “No-planer” word).

      You then wrote:
      “The idea is to keep us arguing. Keep us debating. Keep us marginalized. Keep real evidence mired in pseudo conversations alongside bullshit put out by anonymous operatives posing as researchers who are merely seen as theorists.”

      “Anonymous operatives?” Well, I do realize that you don’t mention specifically me or my September Clues research – but I hope you are not – after all these years – implying that I am any sort of “anonymous operative”:
      http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=144&p=2351730#p2351730

      Then you wrote:
      “I think the “no-plane at the towers” operatives were put in place to muddy the waters of the genuine “no-impact” events (ie the pentagon and shanksville) and the efforts of researchers and the evidence they’ve uncovered.”

      Sorry, Mr. Marquis – but I feel it is pretty much the other way around: It seems to me quite obvious that the whole Pentagon and Shanksville diversions were designed, ever since day one, as time-consuming distractions/red herrings to divert the attention from the crucial events in Manhattan that day (the demolition of 9 decrepit, old buildings). As for you complaining of “the no-plane operatives put in place to muddy the waters of the genuine no-impacts at the Pentagon and Shanksville”, please stand corrected: my September Clues research includes plenty of evidence for these other two alleged “airplane crashes” being just as fake/staged as the alleged “airplane crashes” in Manhattan. Your claim/accusation that the TV FAKERY research (which obviously focuses on the main Manhattan events/and TV broadcasts of the day) is some sort of ploy designed to ‘divert the attention’ from the Pentagon and Shanksville hoaxes, is not only absurd and laughable: It is mendacious – and clearly meant to muddy the waters.

      As a matter of fact, and FYI, there was TV FAKERY involved at the Pentagon (and Shanksville) too:
      http://septemberclues.info/pentagon_shanksville.htm
      http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2354932#p2354932

      Being the magnanimous sort of person, I won’t return your not-so-thinly-veiled accusations to the sender, Mr Marquis. But I kindly ask you to retract (in the name of the relentlessly growing, international TV FAKERY research community) your ridiculous accusations of all these hard-working, honest researchers being some sort of “operatives”. If anything, such a due retraction might provide some welcome indication of your intellectual honesty. I really do hope you will honor my kind request. Thank you.

      Simon Shack

  24. Simon Shack has presented a perfectly sensible, and clear observation of the events of 911. After going down many “rabbitt” holes, Simon has stood out above all the rest. No planes theory is right on. I would stake my life on it. Thank You so much Simon for “waking me up.

    Truthseeker…

      • Dear Mr. Wright,

        No. Simon Shack has demonstrated how images and videos of 9/11 that we all thought were real were indeed simulated using software (designed to simulate real events) and foisted on the world as real.

        In other words, he’s proved cases where 9/11 images were tainted and enhanced. The level of tainting per image is not clear. But the fact that some images were clearly fudged from the earliest hours after 9/11 proves complicity and foreknowledge. It calls into question more aspects of the OCT. It proves the depth of the hoax.

  25. @Señor El Once
    Simon Shack is an example of someone who has gone ‘down the rabbit hole’ , where sooner or later you end up at the madhatters tea party, sticking a simulated dormouse into a teapot.

  26. I had the blessing of entering the ‘new world’ about 7 hrs after the world. I work at night so I was sleeping away, til my boss called me an said I had to come to work . Turn on the TV was why . I turned on just in time to see a replay of The North Tower coming down , it took ten seconds to know that this was a false flag operation . Being a [ex] fan of the Twin Towers and having watched the construction films from the ’70s I knew it was BS . Why the Secret Service had been to my house in April after I sent an e-mail to KNX 1040 radio. I had heard one of their radio classics show and it was about the radio programming in 1945 the day Hitler had committed suicide. Man was that powerful stuff to a Demo that was hopping mad that Bush had stole Florida and we were in the middle of Enron in California. The feed was just as the day it was recorded and I heard all of it speaking to me about the evil in DC coming out west . It was quite the email looking back , and the last line had a veiled threat to poor little George, so out they came. I told them my concerns with the Bush problem and warned that something was coming, soon.
    When I was woken up I knew, here it was.
    They had written in no-bid contracts in Defense, stolen Florida, now to replace communisum with terrorism. The White-House meeting in secret by Big Dick Cheney in Feb laid out their plans to start wars and which oil comps took what oil in the middle east, let alone the gas pipelines thru Afgans.
    It really became true when I found out about the PNAC doc. pp51 for anyone who wants to read it.
    Took me a long time to grasp how they did it an now it’s clear as a bell. I’m in Dr Woods court on this one. The Carlyle group is really a marker that should not be dismissed . Ten years to buy up weapon factories, get control of the wheels of war. That’s what happened on nine eleven .
    A big show to get their companies into war and make trillions. Plain and simple . Ten years, they got away with it. It dumbfounds me how slick they were, they even paid off the victims families with a million dollars? WTF? Why would they give then a million dollars, the terrorists did it!
    Amazing! Of course it’s the same type group that told us that JFK was NOT shot from the grassy
    knoll even when video/film from that day shows dozen’s of people running up the knoll cause they had just felt the shots from there. Christ, they even had 8mm film showing the death shot from the front and they talked people into single gunman story. I saw an old photo from then , before Photoshop, that showed Oswald on the steps of the book depository just as JFK is brings his hands up as grab this neck, first shot. Bush one just happened to be in Dallas that morning with his fellow CIA agents. Hummmmmm. Sorta makes you wonder where we’d be without the FED and the CIA. That’s what he was doing, replacing the FED with his US BANK notes. This ended after his death. Just think what life would be like today if JFK could have closed the central bank.
    It goes back that far, Bush’s father just had been kicked out congress in the 50′s for supporting the Nazis , Poppa Bush has been behind the majority of wrong doing in the world’s history. Too bad, we could have utopia now.

  27. Sir:

    Because this is so long, I wanted to send it to your personal email, but I could find no contact information. That way, you could have decided what to do with it, if anything. It is easy to write in small bites if you are going to offer unsubstantiated criticisms, as Dr. Wood’s detractors have done, But to make a valid case FOR anything takes time. But here goes.

    I knew, on the day, that the 911 “explanation” was a LIE. How? via paranoia? No. God forgive me for lack of tact, but honestly, through not being woefully ignorant. Since what passes for education is not your fault, it’s not a personal criticism of anyone who took longer.

    I too saw an image of a plane that held its shape as it penetrated a building. “This is like a movie, it can’t be real,” I thought. The clincher was the speed with which the buildings came down. I’d say “fell”, but I never saw that. I saw a disintegration.

    So, I knew.

    My background: dual degree physics/maths, BS, summa cum laude; acquired before grade inflation and politics destroyed the integrity of higher education and made degrees worth as much as toilet paper, but not worth more. I accepted a fellowship to complete a PhD in physics (they wanted me badly enough to pay me to go to school). I soon afterward returned the honor, saying it was for personal reasons. It was. I had a soul.

    I told interested questioners — for what I’d done was strange, rejecting a sweet deal for wage slavery — “If I am a physicist, the three-letter agencies will know every time I flush the toilet. if I accomplish anything, a breakthrough, they will take it. They’ll use it to control and to kill people, and to destroy the planet. And no, I don’t want to teach. My goal was research. Anyway, why would I teach others to do what I will not?” My formal education in physics ended. I did a couple years of mathematics graduate work. It was not the same, and I knew I wanted it to be a back door to physics…so I had quit. (This was well before the movie, “Good Will Hunting”. His speech about why he should NOT work for the NSA made me cry, for love of the film writer telling the truth. But I hadn’t been that good. My memory was not entirely photographic. I had to study. I couldn’t have made a speech like that without a rehearsal. But I could identify.)

    How is this relevant? All cutting edge physics is classified. It is in no way in the public domain. In university, undergraduates are taught a watered-down, even misleading version of “physics”. I once asked a visiting professor why our texts gave impossible explanations for certain atomic phenomena, and he told me frankly that “the others don’t need to understand.” The engineers, the physics teachers…the lowly people outside the inner circle don’t need to know how the world works, you see. And this mis-education goes largely undetected. Because most students believe they understand material when they are able to regurgitate explanations (whether they make real sense or not), and many professionals admit they don’t understand much of their own field.

    People who claim to doubt the validity of Dr. Wood’s research, which points to the likely use of directed energy weapons, complain that she does not describe the exact mechanism. She ought to be able to illustrate a patentable schematic? No. Wrong. All of that applied physics is classified, baby.

    But does she need to do that, in order to make valid scientific observations?

    No. The atomic bomb, to use an ugly example, was well understood in PRINCIPLE, long before it was created, which took some doing. That’s how applied science works.

    When I say that she understands and describes the processes in principle, that is valid scientific principle, not in speculative, philosophical, literary, artistic, or imaginary principle.

    That the weapons already exist has been proven by what happened to the two towers, UNLESS all or almost all of Dr. Wood’s evidence is incorrect. That seems a ludicrous suggestion, which you can only discern that if you read the book.

    Let me be clear, using an example.

    I do not have to know the techniques by which video can be manipulated in order to understand that the image I saw of a plane entering a building side without losing its shape was faked. The proof of the fakery was the video itself, showing the physically impossible.

    If anyone challenged me to explain how a video could be faked, I’d not know the process.

    Like Judy Wood’s detractors, my critics would deride me for not being able to explain how it was done in detail. Irrelevant. It clearly was done. The job would be to find out how… It may seem an absurd comparison, on the surface, as most people do know that video can be phonied up.

    But that technology is not CLASSIFIED.

    DEW science is mostly classified. Dr. Wood’s inability to give the schematics is not relevant, for she has shown that, in principle, it can be done

    Further, all Dr. Wood must do to eliminate other possible explanations of the demise of those two towers is to falsify those explanations, that is, to prove that they are NOT ADEQUATE to explain ALL the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

    She has done so. There are no cracks in her reasoning.

    The whisper soft seismic impact of the towers, compared to what would have happened had the bulk of the materials slammed to the ground, is all that is needed to prove that most of the building material disintegrated before it hit the ground. If the seismic evidence is valid, end of story!

    But this technical evidence is supported by other types of technical evidence, and also by eyewitness accounts. Many eyewitness accounts. It is simply not plausible that all those people, most of them emergency workers, are liars, actors.

    The existence of real eyewitnesses is one very big reason why the government would not want to see a genuine investigation proceed, at least not until it’s too late, when all those witnesses are dead.

    The physical anomalies of the “collapse” were witnessed by real people on the scene, as well as by technological recording devices and by satellite imagery.

    Amassing all the evidence that it was humanly possible to obtain, including all types of evidence, and putting enough of it in one large book (pathetic that someone should criticise a book for its virtue of containing sufficient telling material), correlating it, and walking readers through detailed explanations of the physical meaning of it all…she has done that.

    After the 911 event, I was horrified that there was not mass outcry from scientists, engineers, academics in the relevant fields, against the obvious trickery.

    Dr. Wood is the only one who cared to examine ALL the available evidence, present her findings, and suggest that cutting edge technology was used…technology that if used for peaceful purposes could free mankind from much drudgery and deprivation.

    Does such technology exist? Yes, it does. But don’t believe me. Read the book. Carefully. Pay attention until you understand what she is saying. I realize that most people are not educated in the sciences and don’t know much more math than basic arithmetic, but it will be worth your efforts to understand. I promise.

    Another detractor actually complained that no one could provide him with an explanation of Dr. Wood’s research in a few sentences. It reminds me of people asking me to “explain physics” to them. I’d just stare. I won’t say exactly what I would be thinking, but uncomplimentary notions like “moron” might have been involved. Or I’d ask if they had a few years. I might well have said, “Physics is understanding the physical universe in terms of electric charge,” and they’d have known exactly as much physics as before, that is, none.

    The explanations take a little more time than that.

    Happily, you don’t need a few years to follow Dr. Wood’s presentation, but you do need to patiently follow the text, and if you are woefully backward in scientific education, you might need to look up the basics in outside sources.

    The same detractor referred to “proof” of thermite as the agent of destruction, or perhaps he was more careful and only mentioned “proof” of the presence of thermitic materials. Well, hell…those very materials would be present, just as found, due to the composition of the towers. This is why, Dr. Wood has said that finding those materials at the scene, and jumping to the conclusion that thermite/thermate destroyed the buildings is not scientific. She points out, absolutely correctly, and hilariously I might add, that it is like assuming that blood killed a murder victim, just because the body is lying in a pool of blood. The person who thinks that the presence of those materials is sufficient evidence to constitute “proof” that weaponized thermite accomplished the destruction of the buildings is in need of remedial science courses, starting with the scientific method.

    I am not saying that no thermite was used anywhere in the building, but I am agreeing with Dr. Wood that if it was, it is irrelevant to the overall demise of the buildings. A thermite driven collapse would not have produced molecular dissociation, and it would have left a very large signature at seismic recording stations. Thermite can be eliminated as the primary murder weapon.

    A flea may bite a man, but if he’s been gored by a rhino, it won’t matter.

    The Erin thing: a hurricane has a field associated with it, and the field spreads far past the apparent storm edge. On 911, Erin’s field was over New York City.

    What is a directed energy weapon? How does it work, in principle? via the interference of electromagnetic energy fields.

    The timing of Erin’s motion, and its unprecedented stationary hold, are suggestive of the storm having had a role in the process that was used. Is this possible? remember what I said about real science being classified. My opinion as a near scientist by education and by past association with the big boys is, yes.

    Another critic asserted was that this “new” technology would not be used, because all the kinks might not have been worked out. It would be unreliable. There were several incidents, which Dr. Wood did not mention in her book, and perhaps she is not even aware of them, that may well qualify as tests of the DEW used. There are records of odd collapses of buildings and of other structures prior to 911…and no, I don’t have the links with me, and I’m not inclined to look them up. I read. I remember. And I understood what I was reading…take it or leave it, and do your own research. In any case, what is “new” to the public may well be “perfected” to the servants of death.

    Images: if I were to fake ALL the images of 911 (one fake video, or a few, cannot rule out all imagery taken on the day…) I’d have made the “collapse” at least look like a real collapse. With the glaring error of a free fall descent — apparently, the perp’s correctly realized that most Americans were too ignorant to notice or to understand what that meant — a “smoke screen” to hide an actual conventional controlled collapse is a moot point. After all, mythical collapse by fire and plane damage would have been more believable, had the video shown a crashing down of building parts…and most people would have bought any dumb story to cover the squibs and explosions. If they could swallow that plane into the side of the building and the free fall destruction…. no worries. Again, there would have been a seismic signature indicating the mass that had crashed. And witnesses would have heard the crashing, even had they not seen it. No one did. The demise of the buildings was quiet. But Dr. Wood presents that testimony from witnesses.

    And if I were the 911 orchestrator (I can’t call a destroyer a “master mind” — you have to create value for that, not steal or kill), coordinating an event to promote wars to a dumbed down, gullible, frightened populace, I do not think I’d worry over a few thousand deaths on the day. I’m sure I’d consider myself so untouchable, so above law, that I wouldn’t worry about people discovering me and being able to do a single thing about it…in any case, that would only give me, my cabal, an excuse to turn the weapons on them under some other false pretense, a bonus I’d enjoy, “as I lick the boots of death, born out of fear…” (paraphrase of Jethro Tull)

    You can’t reason about insane perverts as if they cared about the potential consequences of being caught out in crimes. Lawsuits? my…never mind. They like the edge, because it proves they are clever compared to everyone else…or so they imagine. Sneaky, deceptive, clever with huge warps and cracks, unwise and all ego, is what I’d expect from the originator of the crime. A control freak and a coward, but far too arrogant to play it safe all the time.

    Or maybe that free fall time wasn’t so dumb? Maybe it would give someone, someday, an out … “We didn’t kill any Americans…See, it was ALL fake. Well, we killed your young people by getting them to go into wars where they murdered other people in their own homes in other lands…but hey, we Americans all love a good war, right?” Grin and wink.

    Nah.

    You can’t have it both ways. That free fall was stupid. How can the orchestrator be both stupid and brilliant?

    Thing is, the FREE FALL time was UNAVOIDABLE if DEW was used. It could have been avoided entirely if thermite did the deed.

    At last, Dr. Wood is the only researcher who seems to have a grain of humility, in that she does invite criticism and relevant input, including correction, of the content of her work (not of her person …which is all she ever gets). I bought the book after years of delay, knowing that “this woman is on the right track,” from looking at her web site and hearing a great interview with her (obviously not the one others here have mentioned. Maybe Dr. Wood lost her composure when attacked rather than interviewed in that one? Some people do, in a situation like that. And some are too kind to anticipate a back stabbing when asked to appear to speak.)

    In any case, I’ve seen her criticized for her lack of articulation…well, most scientists write better than they speak. (I can write rings around a false argument from another, but I wouldn’t want to do a verbal debate; I’d likely trip over my own tongue.) So, that’s nothing. And I’ve seen a criticism of her associates…well, if in fact any of those named associates are shady, don’t you know, one of the things the cabal will do is to send companions, colleagues, ostensibly on the side of truth and justice, to monitor an honest researcher, and later to be used as a “discredit by association” tool. It’s false argument. tOne critic even said that he need not read her book, because he didn’t approve of her! How babyish can you get?

    Honest people can make a few mistakes. Liars or fools may inadvertently give out solid information and clues. So, all in all, it’s best to give every one a hearing , and then think about what they’ve said, not who said it…putting it together so that it makes sense. that is how science would do it.

    Mostly, name-calling has been used to falsely discredit Dr. Wood. Or is it labeling when you call someone crazy, and everybody is supposed to be afraid to read her book because that means they are stupid or crazy too?

    I was on-line, days after 911, posting in the International section of the Guardian Unlimited forum, where there were many intelligent participants at the time (not so now). I was posting that the “collapse” story was a lie, and when people would not understand the physical impossibility of it, I posted all the other information I could find that indicated a false flag. I’d even seen the official record of the Payne Stewart interception before it was altered to make it seem like it took longer than a few minutes for the interceptors to reach the plane. I wondered why the joint chiefs had found that plane so interesting that they’d followed its progress, and the interceptor handoffs, until the plane downed; but on 911 they were doing exactly what? smoking in the can for an hour and a half? I covered it all: false passports, phony hijackers who couldn’t even fly, no plane at the Pentagon, silly 3-stooges style planted “evidence” that implicated Muslims, like the Koran in the car, and an indestructible passport. “Whoever writes this stuff,” I thought, “is not bright or talented at all. No wonder they can’t write for the real movies.” I surmised that the Pennsylvania plane had been intended to hit the WTC7, as a cover for its demise, but it was shot down … but it was only surmise. I did that for months, now and again coming in with something new I’d found, quoting many good researchers, but none of them had confronted the PHYSICAL evidence of what had happened.

    I came to believe that when people want to know, they will know. Until then, nothing will penetrate the denial.

    One of Dr. Wood’s critics accused you of blathering endlessly, or something like that, Sr. I have blathered endlessly too. But so did that critic. I’m only doing it once.That’s my excuse. He/she blathered on in multiple posts. So, it’s fair trade.

    I thank Dr. Wood for her work. It is about the physical evidence on site. Eyewitness accounts from the site. Finally. The least I could do was to buy/read her book, even though a wage slave thinks a lot of $40.

    In the end, her work may make all the difference. I pray that it does.

    • Yvonne,

      Your piece was certainly long but it is also very thoughtful and intelligent, so I didn’t want to leave any of it out. I know that some of the regular contributors to my blog will want to react to what you’ve written.

      I have felt for some time that some kind of unconventional destructive force could have been involved in bringing the towers down. I have a copy of Dr. Wood’s book, which someone was kind enough to send me. I have read part of it but I want to really give it more of a chance so that I am better informed concerning the debate over her work. At the moment, I would call myself uncommitted and, I hope, open-minded.

      I also find the video evidence showing the plane melting into the building’s interior to be suspicious. Unfortunately, expressing this can get you dubbed a “no-planer” which is not an accurate description of where I stand. I don’t feel that video manipulation and an impact with the building are mutually exclusive. But in this area as well, I’m trying to educate myself before making a pronouncement that I’ll later have to retract.

      I’m also fascinated by the whole subject of Hurricane Erin and what role it could have played in the 9/11 deception. It makes me wish I had a stronger background in science. Or any background.

      One thing I can say is that no level of deception would surprise me.

      Thank you for your thoughts on this, and I hope you’ll react to some of the comments that are sure to come.

      • Dear Craig,

        Let me just share with you my personal take regarding what is going on here on your blog. You may have appreciated (or not) my contributions in the last week or so – yet, I can’t see that you have responded in any way to my humble contributions.

        Your prompt response to the zany piece of “Yvonne” (promoting Judy Wood’s “dustification” theories – based on fake video imagery) tells me that something isn’t quite right over here. I have appreciated to this day your seemingly honest, intellectual openness to the many so-called “9/11 conspiracy-theories”. This openness is laudable – and I thank you again for letting me lay out and illustrate my own – here on your personal blog. However, since I have very valid reasons for dissociating my research from that of Judy Wood’s (which clearly attempts to provide a “scientific explanation” to the absurd, computer-animated WTC collapse imagery) – I will now gracefully bow out of this place.

        Thanks for having me! – as they say on TV… :O)

        • Simon,

          I was not linking you to Judy Wood in any way. I was commenting that I believe in keeping an open mind on subjects that the majority dismiss out of hand. I didn’t say that Yvonne was right, I said I am willing to try to learn more about what she and others have to say.

          The message I seem to get from a number of people who I may agree with otherwise is that you can’t say anything positive about Judy Wood OR about TV fakery without being written off by someone. I watched the exchanges between you and other contributors with interest. I chose not to enter the fray then, but not because of any intended slight or disapproval of your presence. To read something into my “prompt” response to Yvonne is off base.

          I don’t understand why people leave a forum because they hear something they don’t agree with. I’ve had people do that because I’m willing to consider TV fakery as well. My take is that if you think I’m wrong, then set me straight. Why do you have to conclude that “something isn’t right here”? I instinctively rebel when anyone tells me not to consider a particular point of view. People also say that about CIT and their work. I didn’t listen to those who were pushing to marginalize them.

          Anyway, I respect your right to depart even though I don’t understand it. But I’d rather you explained to me where you feel I was wrong.

          • Dear Craig,

            Thanks for your welcome – and prompt – clarification. I apologize for what may have sounded like an undue criticism of your mostly well-moderated blog. Hopefully, you will understand my weariness of participating (for almost half a decade now) in countless web discussions – and seeing that, as soon as I join them, a horde of obvious 9/11 gatekeepers will appear out of nowhere with the clear intent to bury the TV FAKERY evidence (for lack of a better word to describe the now incontrovertible evidence of the mainstream media’s use of computer imagery to mould the “world news events” to suit the vested interests of the world “elite” – or whatever you wanna call it).

            So thank for your kind response, Craig. I will be back here – whenever you call on me.

            • I’m glad to hear it, Simon.

              For what it’s worth, I think that the subject you champion deserves to be evaluated on its own merits. In other words, I don’t believe any “guilt by association” should be permitted to undercut what you are saying. Regardless of who supports TV fakery (yes, for wont of a better term), or what else they might link it to, your evidence should be looked at fairly and scientifically. If people think you’re wrong, let that be because they don’t agree with your evidence, not because of any artificial association that might have been created by a gatekeeper or anyone else.

    • This reply is being posted by Craig McKee on behalf of Señor El Once for reasons explained below:

      2012-02-08

      Note to Mr. McKee and the readers: This is the [fourth] [fifth] sixth time I’ve attempted to post this response to this thread. This is no condemnation of Mr. McKee. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that my three attempts at posting were intercepted. Normally when a posting is in the process of being successful, I’ll see it (due to cookies) in my browser on my local version of the blog as it will appear after Mr. McKee approves but the distinction “Awaiting Moderation.” On my second attempt, I immediately got a dialog box message to the effect: “This seems to be duplicate posting.” Ergo, someone got it, received it, recognized it. The third attempt was slightly modified and received neither an “Awaiting Moderation” preview nor notice of duplication. In between the second and third attempts, I posted successfully a response to Mr. HybridRogue1 in the Sanctions on Gallop 9/11 lawsuit…” thread. Mr. iMcKee assured me off-list that he did not get any of my three attempts. Now if this isn’t a sign that NSA Q-Groupies have taken notice because maybe these zany bat-shit crazy loony insane rabbit-hole” theories from a confessed duped useful idiot might be on the right track. Is this where we cue the music to “The Twilight Zone”?

      Message to Dr. (I presume) Yvonne: I agree 100% with what you wrote. Great job! Too bad from my engineering studies, I resemble your comment “many professionals admit they don’t understand much of their own field.” I studied physics and calculus: both very trippy and required faith to then quickly apply it in other disciplines.

      Message to Mr. Shack follows.

      Dear Mr. Shack,

      I enjoyed your contributions here very much. They provided insight into helping me overcome obstacles in my thinking and beliefs. I hope that you will continue, because you seem to have the skills to help trim the fat from Dr. Wood’s book, maybe by helping us identify the taint in various manipulated images upon which she hints at certain concepts.

      You wrote to Mr. McKee:

      Your prompt response to the zany piece of “Yvonne” (promoting Judy Wood’s “dustification” theories – based on fake video imagery) tells me that something isn’t quite right over here.

      Actually, it is your promptness to “gracefully bow out of this place” based on Ms. Yvonne’s posting that “tells me that something isn’t quite right.”

      Mr. Shack, you are hardly in a position to be labeling anything pertaining to Dr. Wood as “zany.” For starters, you haven’t read her book, you do not even have her book, and you declined my repeated offers to help you overcome this financial and logistics impediment, supposedly “out of intellectual honesty.” You should explain that one, because book reports, reviews, and assessments without the book is both “intellectually dishonest” and “zany.”

      [My offer expired, and you are on your own to secure a copy. I'll try not to rub your nose in your refusal too frequently. But you can bet that I'm going to continually club your arguments over the head with my copy of her book until you rise to the minimal level required for an informed discussion about it.]

      Dustification isn’t just a theory, it is reality on 9/11. As others have tried to corner me, we can split hairs over the extent of what was dustified — certainly all of the concrete and drywall and we’ll leave quantities of steel as debate point. The evidence of dustification is visible right from the cover of Dr. Wood’s book, an image that you have not proven was a fake. You just make repeated and grandious innuendos: “If I prove one (or n) images were tampered with, then we can’t trust any of the images.”

      To basterize the words of Ronald Reagan: “Distrust but verify.”

      Your efforts have proven that we shouldn’t take the imagery of 9/11 at face value: great. The validity of each image and the extent of possible digital manipulation needs to be assessed individually image-by-image. One-by-one, separate the wheat from the chaf, the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.

      I am willing to entertain the notion that Dr. Wood incorporated some images that are tainted. No one can blame her, because she uses images that everyone has and few have disputed. I’m sure once the tainting is brought to her attention, we’ll get a heart-felt “I’m sorry” coupled with a “please keep in consideration the images that haven’t been proven tainted.”

      Mr. Shack, do you point out the specific images in her work that have a high probability of being tainted? No. I wrote you off-list with the suggestion of you starting a Dr. Wood thread on your forum with the expressed purpose of trying to find tainted images. I even provided a short list of images to start the hunt for the artifacts of digital manipulation. Your response? Silence.

      You write:

      [Dr. Wood] clearly attempts to provide a “scientific explanation” to the absurd, computer-animated WTC collapse imagery.

      This is an absurd strawman, Mr. Shack, because Dr. Wood’s textbook does not have the ability to display animated imagery of any sorts, computer or otherwise.

      Dr. Wood’s scientific explanation dives into lots of other evidence, but you don’t know this because your “intellectual honesty” prevents you from acquiring the book and reading & knowing it for yourself.

      Here is something Yvonne wrote that I concur with and that you failed to address:

      Images: if I were to fake ALL the images of 911 (one fake video, or a few, cannot rule out all imagery taken on the day… ) I’d have made the “collapse” at least look like a real collapse. With the glaring error of a free fall descent — apparently, the perp’s correctly realized that most Americans were too ignorant to notice or to understand what that meant — a “smoke screen” to hide an actual conventional controlled collapse is a moot point. After all, mythical collapse by fire and plane damage would have been more believable, had the video shown a crashing down of building parts… and most people would have bought any dumb story to cover the squibs and explosions. If they could swallow that plane into the side of the building and the free fall destruction… . no worries. Again, there would have been a seismic signature indicating the mass that had crashed. And witnesses would have heard the crashing, even had they not seen it. No one did. The demise of the buildings was quiet. But Dr. Wood presents that testimony from witnesses.

      You can’t have it both ways. That free fall was stupid. How can the orchestrator be both stupid and brilliant?

      Thing is, the FREE FALL time was UNAVOIDABLE if DEW was used. It could have been avoided entirely if thermite did the deed.

      You, Yvonne, and I are in agreement that WTC collapse imagery is absurd. The reason Yvonne and I think it is absurd stems from it not being in conformance with the laws of physics.

      You push the envelope and say that all of the WTC collapse imagery was computer-animated. I say: prove it. And I’ll wager that you can’t. Because if it was all computer-animated, they could have done it right. They could have made it believable. It would not have been FREE FALL.

      Here is a funny bench mark.

      Mr. Marquis (of CIT and fly-over fame) takes offense when the thread touches on digital manipulation of images (e.g., no planes). Mr. Shack (of no-planes fame) takes offense when the thread touches on Dr. Wood and energy requirements of the destruction. You act as if your work is mutually exclusive.

      Far from being mutually exclusive, the reality is that these three areas (fly-over, no-planes, massive energy) are overlapping and supportive of one another. Together, they provide the big picture and understanding.

      And when one area (A) makes dismissive comments of another area (B) unsubstantiated with specifics, it backfires.

      ++++++

      For those interested, below are links to the initial set of images used by Dr. Wood that I would like validated as being real or tainted. Some of the images are duplicate; I’ve provided multiple destinations when Dr. Wood’s website gave such.

      One of the tasks for the researches is to determine if these images are truly source, or if other images available from different repositories are. Once the source of the image is obtained, then of course the hunt for the artifacts of digital manipulation begins.

      http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/5139%7e0.jpg
      http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/indexpics/tn5139%7e0.jpg
      http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/5139_0_s.jpg
      http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/AftermathReuters10_s.jpg

      http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/moltensteelclose0yl_s.jpg

      http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/hotslagil3.jpg
      http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4509/hotslagil3.jpg

      http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/September_13_from_space.jpg

      http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
      http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/911wtc1blowupconcretefull.jpg
      http://drjudywood.com/articles/erin/hpics/010911_1867.jpeg
      http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image190.jpg
      http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/010913_5316.jpg

  28. “Well, hell…those very materials would be present, just as found, due to the composition of the towers.”~Yvonne

    I enjoyed reading your article, and there is a lot of sense therein. However this stood out for me, and I would like to comment on it.

    The very materials that make up the body of a human being are present in the earth. Yet we would not assert that a human can simply spontaneously arise from that earth…unless we are referring to some biblical passage. To suggest that these elements could come together in such specific bondings in some spontaneous reaction is to suggest the same sort of supernatural scenario

    I think it is interesting that you have such facility in physics and have now lent your support to the Wood view of things. I am just baffled that you could make the comment you do about the nanothermate evidences as it seems you must not have read the Jones-Harrit paper.

    Of course this does not address nor debunk any of your other points, and my comment is not meant to. I agree with much of the predatory passages about the secret technologies of the military, etc.
    What I do not agree with at this point is that Wood has proven her case for the need of DEW to explain the destruction of WTC. And I see alternatives that are simpler for the anomalies she points out.

    ww

  29. “…complain that she does not describe the exact mechanism..”~Yvonne

    This is an interesting passage. Do you mean that the “exact device” does not need to be described? Or do you mean, as you have put it, “the exact mechanism”?

    The distinction of course is one would describe a patentable device, and the other is to describe the actual mechanics necessarily to achieve the results in evidence.

    I hate to address you in a critique of the language used here, but language and construction is important to reason.

    My point is that I personally do not demand that the weapon postulated be described in any other but its energetic capacities, and the reasonable explanations as to where such capacity derives. Is it possible to achieve such capacities? Not merely under today’s understanding of physics, but in any form of physics short of metaphysics {the Arthur .C. Clark dictum}

    ww

  30. Yvonne Says:

    “The whisper soft seismic impact of the towers, compared to what would have happened had the bulk of the materials slammed to the ground, is all that is needed to prove that most of the building material disintegrated before it hit the ground. If the seismic evidence is valid, end of story!”

    This is another feature which is misconstrued. While it may be so that “had the bulk of the materials slammed to the ground”…AT THE SAME MOMENT.

    Simply viewing the visual evidence is sufficient to say that the building materials did NOT slam into the ground at the same moment.

    Now, I have transferred your entire post to a word dock so that I can read it carefully at my own pace and give it due consideration. As you will notice I have already come across a couple of ‘tics’ in this argument.

    Perhaps Mr. McKee might consider a new page totally dedicated to the Wood hypothesis, where this issue could be sorted out…{?}

    ww

  31. Yvonne Says:

    “Dr. Wood is the only one who cared to examine ALL the available evidence, present her findings, and suggest that cutting edge technology was used…”

    It is this claim made by all of her supporters which is perhaps the most questionable of all.

    Merely asserting this proposition is not adequate. In fact many of the claims Ms. Wood has made have been rebutted by other scientists. Whether you accept the arguments or not, they have been addressed.

    The problem as I see it is that too many have accepted this notion that, “Dr. Wood is the only one who cared to examine ALL the available evidence,” without making sufficient inquiry as to these rebuttals.

    I would add that many of the arguments you make within your post, are shared by the 9/11 community in general, such as witness testimonies, the absurdity of the official explanation, etc.
    It would therefore be more apropos to parse your argument in such a way that you do not include such common denominators within the same claim of exclusivity for Dr. Wood’s hypothesis.

    ww

  32. >*?”That the weapons already exist has been proven by what happened to the two towers, UNLESS all or almost all of Dr. Wood’s evidence is incorrect. That seems a ludicrous suggestion, which you can only discern that if you read the book.”~Yvonne

    Now this is actually a circular argument, and you yourself should see that.

    “UNLESS”:

    In that many of her arguments are presented before the publication of this book, and many have been rebutted by other scientist, the suggestion that the compound argument presented in the book is any stronger than the separate points already in dispute must be parsed out.
    Does her argument in toto overwhelm even excluding the rebuttals already made? Put another way, has she addressed and overcome such rebuttals?

    Which brings up the point; have you yourself addressed such rebuttals?

    ww

  33. “At last, Dr. Wood is the only researcher who seems to have a grain of humility, in that she does invite criticism and relevant input, including correction, of the content of her work (not of her person …which is all she ever gets)”~Yvonne

    I direct your attention to this critique of Wood’s work (not of her person), by Dr. Jenkins and Arabesque, which which has been answered, yet not addressed by Ms. Wood:

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/NISTRFCWoodRebuttalGBU.pdf

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ResponseGood,Bad,Ugly.pdf Wood’s non-reply:

    “I decline a peer-reviewed approach…”~Wood

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “Since the scientific dialog remains closed, reiteration of our criticisms is the only defense
    against the relentless promulgation of discredited notions by Dr. Wood. Our specific
    questions and criticisms (expressed in detail in publications listed above) have remained
    unacknowledged for many months.”
    ~Jones, Jenkins, Arabesque, Tony Szamboti, James Gourley – Journal of 9/11 Studies

    ww

  34. Dr. Judy Wood wrote:

    One would hope that the technique of repetition of wrongly oriented criticisms will not become the operating norm…

    How very astute. Above is an example of “repetition of wrongly oriented criticisms that became the operating norm.”

    I don’t know if Dr. Yvonne is even subscribed to this thread to know of Mr. HybridRogue1′s six-part (so far) critique.

    • Not so simple Mr. Once,

      Proclaiming “wrongly oriented criticisms” as a blanket response, and excuse for not answering criticism is simply a dodge and a faint. It is in fact outrageous bullshit.

      Have you examined these “wrongly oriented criticisms”? They blow her out of the water. She can’t answer them – the arguments against her hypothesis are iron clad. Sorry dude, she’s a dud.

      I left it at six responses for the very reason that Yvonne hadn’t responded.

      ~Secret Agent Man

      • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

        Have you examined these “wrongly oriented criticisms”?

        I have. Have you examined the criticisms of Dr. Jones and nano-thermite?

        And I understand both why criticisms were wrongly oriented and why valid issues with her work persist. I do not proclaim her work to be perfect.

        Here’s what you don’t understand, dude.

        To the degree that Dr. Wood is a dud, so is Dr. Jones, so is Mr. Gage, so is Mr. Chandler, so is Simon Shack, so is the CIT gang, …

        Which is why I’ve been stating all along that to the best of my ability I mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation — that will always have to eventually be present in their work (if the govt is good for nothing else.) For all I know, the flakes of disinformation getting inserted into their work may be their “get out of assassination free card”, the compromise they made with the devil to secure another day on this planet breathing for themselves and loved ones.

        Disinformation is often the best source of (nuggets of) truth with respect to 9/11.

        As such, those not willing to explore that which they prejudge to be disinformation will never find the hidden nuggets of truth that make up what the truth of 9/11 is. And consequently, the means with which they duped us in this hoax will be re-deployed again and again, to our demise.

  35. “I have. Have you examined the criticisms of Dr. Jones and nano-thermite?”~Mr. Once

    And so I click on the rubric of :criticisms of Dr. Jones…” and where does it take me? It takes me to your latest filibuster on this very site.

    So I answer yes indeed, I read that. So what? It is the same bla bla bla you have been trying to feed me for weeks. Do you have a scientific paper with criticisms of Dr. Jones and nano-thermite you can send me to, or are we playing ring around the rosy here?

    ~Increasingly Dubious, B.S.,M.S., Ph.D., Special Agent, A-team of the NSA Q-Group, etc…

  36. “Bang bang Maxwell’s silver hammer came down upon his head”….

    To be frank [no flies on] this roundabout is not exactly bridges over troubled waters for me.

    I am getting a headache sitting here in my office {deep underground – undisclosed location] with a bank of computer screens, high tech surveillance devices, and the hum and clatter of keyword exploitation search engines…and I am chain smoking Camels, being careful not to drop an ash on my custom tailored, black 1950′s style business-suit {crisp white shirt and thin black tie topping it off, over my spit shined black wing tips]…my girl, er assistant has kept my coffee cup full {just like at diners in the 50s as well] …

    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”.

    Point blank; my patience has gone from thin to nonexistent.

    adios mr eleven.

    ~Secret Agent Man

    • 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.

  37. “Disinformation is often the best source of (nuggets of) truth with respect to 9/11.”~mr. the eleven

    A twisted assertion my spun dizzy friend. The best source of truth is in the reasonable counter arguments to disinformation.

    “As such, those not willing to explore that which they prejudge to be disinformation will never find the hidden nuggets of truth that make up what the truth of 9/11 is.” ~Once and again

    In what is there “prejudgment”?

    Let it be admitted once and for all mr. gyroscope-head, that long before Judy Moonbeams published her mighty tome of disinformation, central portions of her propositions were scientifically critiqued as false logic based on misrepresentation of the scientific facts addressed. As has been shown: despite the claims of her supporters that, “Dr. Wood is the only researcher who seems to have a grain of humility, in that she does invite criticism and relevant input, including correction, of the content of her work,” that she IN FACT, “decline{s} a peer-reviewed approach.” And that she IN FACT has YET to address these valid criticisms.

    The “nuggets of truth” are to be found, not in the disinformation and wild goose chase led by this perversion of science, but the real science and reasoning that discredits such lunatic claims.

    You say, “And I understand both why criticisms were wrongly oriented..”

    Really?

    Well then you just go ahead and explain WHY they are “wrongly oriented,” – which implies that these criticisms were not addressing the facts of the claims she made, but looking elsewhere and misrepresenting those claims. Having read these criticisms myself, I can say with confidence that they were made directly to the claims of Ms. Wood, and did NOT in any way dissemble into arguing against anything she did not herself assert.

    Enough of your euphemisms and spurious allegories Mr. Once – address directly wherein these critiques of Wood are “wrongly oriented”. And I will not accept the hand-waving fizzspittle that these criticisms are not of her new book, and are therefore dated. Her website is still promoting these issues that have been thoroughly debunked. As they have not been retracted there, one must assume that they have been carried forward into her publication.

    Do not continue to trifle with me by bouncing all over the place, salting your commentary with all manner of other distracting arguments – simply address this core issue: In what are these critiques of Wood “wrongly oriented”?

    ww

  38. “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.”~Once

    I gave a history of Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion that totally dispenses with these spurious allegations, if you will recall – and if you cannot, they are still present on the ‘April Gallop thread’. His very first peer reviewed paper was on this topic in 1983 – long before the Pons-Fleischman debacle.
    _______________

    As far as “space beam” taunts’…for kryst sake blenderman, the very title of the paper Wood wrote is “Star Wars -Beam Weapons”…WTF does that infer to you?

    _______________

    “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…”~Bouncy Oncie

    Explosives Design:

    From what can be gleaned from the literature that has come into the public domain, it is seen that as with most 21st century technologies, the advances have been exponential.

    Where as there are the familiar products such as RDX and C4 which are staple in their energy potentials and are available for both military and commercial applications – the cutting edge is in designer models that can be created to address specific pressures and heat on a custom basis.

    In a sense one could say that with these new chemically nano milled metals, and the addition of various gels and even biological material, a sort of ‘time-release capsule’ can be created, useful in propellent design – but can reach out to other tasks as well, such as simply growing ‘warm’ in a sort of slow motion reaction…or reacting so quickly that it can create an open field implosion, such as the so-called fuel-air bombs, known to have been used in Iraq that creates a vacuum within the blast zone as if the area itself is a chamber.

    This is apparently achieved as a two phase system; an aerosol dispersion of a fine particulate suspended in a gas, followed by an ignition burst. Such weapons can replicate the same types of damages as attributed to the neutron bomb, and they are being used this very day in creating ‘bunker buster’ bombs.

    Now, I find it remarkable that you are willing to ‘wrap your head around’ the possibilities of advances in ‘mini-nukes’ and ‘beam weapons’, but have not taken the time to look into the work being done at JPL and Alamogordo on these nano-milled metals and chemical additives.

    ww

  39. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

    I wrote:

    Disinformation is often the best source of (nuggets of) truth with respect to 9/11. As such, those not willing to explore that which they prejudge to be disinformation will never find the hidden nuggets of truth that make up what the truth of 9/11 is. And consequently, the means with which they duped us in this hoax will be re-deployed again and again, to our demise.

    You ask:

    In what is there “prejudgment”?

    “Duh? My name is Rogue Agent Hybrid. My circuits get rusted when I as much as entertain the notion of sending my Q-bots into Simon Shack’s rabbit holes or into the open crack of Dr. Wood’s textbook. Nope. Ain’t going there, and will continue to plug along from my strong position of ignorance on both subjects.”

    You, like me, have obviously been around the 9/11 block several times here in cyberspace. [And we've probably been allies in most things 9/11.] You’ve been on the disinformation merry-go-round in various cyber-forums, and like me, are dizzy. The truth movement has been spun worse than damp wrinkled clothes in an efficient German washing machine at RPM’s higher than a race car.

    Those of us still seeking truth in the hopes of applying it to better our present situation [America, the world], well,… “question authority” was the mantra of the generation before me. The mantra of 9/11 truth seekers has become “distrust but verify” and necessitates revisiting lots of data points in what we were told from official sources, told from within the 9/11 truth movement, and told even from its fringes. We’re force to triangulate God’s honest truth from there.

    Let it be admitted … that long before [Dr. Wood] published her mighty tome …, central portions of her propositions were scientifically critiqued as false logic based on misrepresentation of the scientific facts addressed.

    Lots of clanging of symbols and tinkling of brass have admittedly been deployed in such scientific critiques, I discover when I research this objectively, on my own, and going deeper than second-hand regurgitated cud. Cud does have nutritional value, which is why the sacred cow chews it some more in the manufacture of milk. Alas, cud ain’t Spring grass either, and I’ve found many instances of the such scientific critiques running pre-maturely out of steam or simply off the road into the weeds.

    ** We now interrupt this posting-in-progress to bring you highlights from the latest Mr. HybridRogue1 posting and my commentary. **

    I gave a history of Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion that totally dispenses with these spurious allegations.

    Not really. It just frames it in a different light. When I objectively reviewed some time ago those allegations and the 1989 video of Dr. Jones, I got the same impression as the allegations. My hazy recollection is: Dr. Jones on behalf of the US govt was debunking cold fusion.

    To learn of “Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion” is information that I didn’t have and adds some motive to the allegations: let the academic competition think cold-fusion is a dead-end, so “Dr. Jones continuing work on cold fusion” can do an end-around quarter-back sneak and become the hero. But don’t hold me to these impressions.

    As far as “space beam” taunts’…for kryst sake blenderman, the very title of the paper Wood wrote is “Star Wars -Beam Weapons”…WTF does that infer to you?

    Touche, Mr. HybridRogue1.

    In fact, my earlier impressions were that Dr. Wood’s space-beams was how she was purposely shooting her disinformation legacy in the foot, as all disinformation agents are required to do at some point in their lifecycle in order to take out that premise and more importantly lots of supporting evidence and truth nuggets from further serious consideration by a thinking public.

    And it was indeed laughable: space-beams on the towers?! What croc! Any fool can see from Mr. Chandler’s high school physics videos that dustification began within the towers towards the top, but not at the tippy-top in a top-down application as space-beams would require.

    The two clever flies she put into that ointment are:

    (1) that destructive space beams haven’t been ruled out for, say, WTC-5 or WTC-6; and
    (2) that the phrase “space beams” apply when contemplating getting energy from a hurricane to the destructive knife’s edge in the form of a DEW device(s) within the towers. Such energy space beams travel through structure and must be snagged, transformed, and output at some other destructive frequency and form.

    Still, to flippantly lump all of her legacy work into a bin called “space beams” doesn’t do it justice. Justice is a relative of Truth.

    Explosives Design: [...] Now, I find it remarkable that you are willing to ‘wrap your head around’ the possibilities of advances in ‘mini-nukes’ and ‘beam weapons’, but have not taken the time to look into the work being done at JPL and Alamogordo on these nano-milled metals and chemical additives.

    Nothing I removed from the [...] section on explosive designs supports the premise that these advances in “nano-milled metals and chemical additives” would yield a useful product in the form of an explosive pulverizing material that can also burn under-rubble, without Oxygen, at high temperature, for many weeks [whether or not used in conjunction with slower-burning material] … and applied in quantities that aren’t obscenely, unrealistically, massive beyond comprehension as you are verbosely trying to lead us to believe.

    You wouldn’t be demonstrating a Q-groupie’s tell of never admitting you’re wrong, are you?

    Shall we take a guess at the grade you received in “boojie woojie high school chemistry”, because evidentally the concept of an explosive/indendiary burn-rate and working backward from a known burn duration to roughly calculate a starting quantity still escapes you? (And I bet you are totally annoyed that you can’t snag Mr. Goldstein’s disinformation flake from Dr. Wood’s about there being no hot-spots, because that would put the nail in this coffin.)

    Dr. Wood’s legacy and Mr. Shack’s legacy have parallels.

    Speaking of Mr. Shack, here is a relevant snippet from a recent off-list exchange. Mr. Shack asked:

    What would someone proving exactly HOW the towers were brought down contribute to exposing the 9/11 hoax? Would the effort of proving precisely WHAT SORT OF explosives/destruction methods were used, actually help making any progress towards exposing this psyop? Nano-Thermite? DEW? Conventional demo-charges? What difference would it make in the great scheme of things?

    I replied:

    In general, you are correct that the distinction between most of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant, with one exception that you didn’t list.

    Nukes have the worst PR, because the public believes that radiation from anything nuclear (e.g., milli-nuke, or a nuclear generator) will be cancerous ground for decades, if not centuries. Public gets a whiff of anything nuclear, they aren’t going to rebuild the WTC. They probably would make them re-route the subway elsewhere. Hell, it might even cause an exodus of Manhattan. If banking elite had any hand in 9/11 (as would be indicated by Silverstein), then this is something they had to avoid at all costs.

    Nuclear mechanisms not only gives little wiggle-room for who some of the conspirators were, but a whole string of enabling agencies from the military to CIA, FBI, FEMA, etc., not to mention the mass media conspirators. Certainly, terrorists could nuke us, but as we’re seeing, terrorists wouldn’t be so organized and efficient both in what they destroyed, but what they didn’t,… or in how they controlled the message coming out of the media.

    Everything that the conspirators hoped to gain from the hoax would be shot down with any form of nuclear revelation, because for them and govt, there would be status quo no longer. The house cleaning would be deep, possibly even to the restructuring of America into smaller regions. From within, the great empire crumbles.

    I’m not married to milli-nukes or DEW or nano-thermite. But in my objective review of various sources, nuclear clues get the most song and dance to get them off of the table in dubious means. It was why Dr. Jones was called in: “Dr. Jones, we need you to put anything nuclear to rest from within the movement. We know there are unanswered energy questions. Here, take nano-thermite to fill the vacuum, even though it still a defense secret. Just as long as nuclear suspicions are squashed.”

    Most science-challenged thinkers didn’t question the 9/11 Truther Dr. Jones. His papers were hard to work through, and even I had glazed over eyes. Still, tricks and deceit were discovered. [Refer to February 14, 2012 at 9:03 am posting above.]

    I am not going to fall into the trap of saying they used method A or method B. The destruction at the WTC, being overkill and redundant, probably used something of every form of destruction conceivable: DEW mounted to the internal structure that later became “the spire”; DEW from space to bore holes in WTC-5; milli-nukes to create a crater in WTC-6 (or maybe that was space-based DEW as well); etc.

    So the difference that knowledge of the exact mechanisms of destruction would make is in how deep we must cut to get out the rot, how deep we must re-structure, and what controls must be put into place to prevent it from happening again.

    Whew! Sorry about its length, but the search for truth and its ramifications on a better world propel me. “Feed my sheep.”

    • Yes Max,

      You should be sorry about the length AND the complete scramble of mumbo jumbo that literally said nothing.

      My simple question put to was, ‘ In what are these critiques of Wood “wrongly oriented”?’ – which you simply danced around like a monkey on crack.

      Is that post supposed to be ‘Rap’ put to music?

      Fuggit dude.

      ww

      • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

        Please. Call me Señor El Once. And remember to roll the “R” to be put into the proper mindset.

        Okay, I’m sorry about the length “AND the complete scramble of mumbo jumbo that literally said nothing.” Ought to be just about right for the silver hammer…

        Parting is such sweet sorrow, as we see from you below:

        [1] I will follow your jumping jack flash only so far.

        [2] Point blank; my patience has gone from thin to nonexistent. adios mr eleven.

        [3] I am not going to try to get you to [grasp my point] again.

        [4] Fuggit dude.

        [5] No, the going isn’t so tough, I am tired of dealing with your BS jive. … Like I said there, fuggit dude.

        All right, all right, already. Follow your own advice. Resist the urge to comment. Ignore me. Fuggit, dude.

  40. This insanity of dense detail and multiplicity of plots and endless what ifs just makes the mind dull and leads to cognizant mayhem.

    “If it’s not in the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST or ASCE, it’s not part of the official story.”~Onesliceshort

    But in the rant [last page over] by Senor Once we have him tying Journal of 9/11Scholars – and that would by extention include Gage, and Griffin as they are all part of the same thrust and use each others research – as suspect agents or dupes. Is this sincere madness on Senor’s part? Or is he a subtle agent himself, infiltrating the truth sites as a truth seeker, but sowing seeds of distrust against the very core of the truth movement.

    As he is so quick to throw the aspersion out at others – such as myself, my intuition tells me this is “stealing thunder” as the Native Americans called such tactic, or being ‘first on the draw’ – so that any answer seems to be merely; “I know you are but what am I?”

    Our strategy should be based on the premise that the Department of Defense will ‘fight the net’ as it would an enemy weapons system”. This strategy of understanding would be, that there will be agents for the Department of Defense working these blogs. Some will be as blatant as Assbury Smith, but some will be much more subtle in building a profile as a genuine seeker of truth.

    I see Wood and Shack in such a light, and I am suspecting Mr. Once as either a dupe of these, or perhaps even being one of them himself.

    I don’t like that every time we are invited to look in his microscope we end up looking in a kaleidoscope of dancing confused shapes and color.

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 and Mr. Marquis,

      It is well that this duped useful idiot comes under the magnifying glass of agent suspicions for my defense of nuggets of truth from sources that are labeled “disinformation,” namely September Clues and Dr. Wood. What removes the taint of agenthood from me and casts it onto others is that I have demonstrated an open-mind, a willingness and openness to change it based on new evidence or analysis, a humbless to admit when I am wrong, and thoughtful thought in descerning what might be a nugget of truth as opposed to the dross of disinformation.

      Agents, on the other hand, have a line in their agenda to defend upon which their job approval rating rests so becomes something a Neo-dodging-bullets ballet of prose to how far they bend over to avoid conceding even the existence of the line or being pushed over it. Evidently, one such line is for participants or readers to devote any form of a serious study in Dr. Wood’s textbook. Book reports are given from high & lofty position of “we don’t need no stinking book in hand to pass our unworthiness judgment!” Such closed-mindedness and unwillingness to go there marks an agent.

      I have been there, and it ain’t perfect, but it is worthy of our attentions to mine the nuggets of truth.

      Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

      But in the rant [last page over] by Señor El Once we have him tying Journal of 9/11Scholars – and that would by extention include Gage, and Griffin as they are all part of the same thrust and use each others research – as suspect agents or dupes. Is this sincere madness on Senor’s part? Or is he a subtle agent himself, infiltrating the truth sites as a truth seeker, but sowing seeds of distrust against the very core of the truth movement.

      In the rant [last page over] by me, I start by pointing out an example of your nasty habit of putting words into my mouth. When the discussion is brought here, you do it yet again. I have never mentioned the group “Journal of 9/11Scholars”. What do they call this technique of faulty arguments in the disinformation parlay?

      I feel myself inclined to re-purpose your words: “Is this sincere madness on [Mr. HybridRogue1’s] part? Or is he a subtle agent himself, infiltrating the truth sites as a truth seeker, but sowing seeds of distrust against [anyone objectively reviewing information, even that deemed containing some level of disinformation.]“

      Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

      Our strategy should be based on the premise that the Department of Defense will ‘fight the net’ as it would an enemy weapons system”. This strategy of understanding would be, that there will be agents for the Department of Defense working these blogs. Some will be as blatant as Assbury Smith, but some will be much more subtle in building a profile as a genuine seeker of truth.

      I see Wood and Shack in such a light, and I am suspecting Mr. Once as either a dupe of these, or perhaps even being one of them himself.

      How come you didn’t mention Dr. Jones? Or yourself?

      Lest there be any doubt, I’m duped. I’m not an agent, because I can be easily duped by something else and change my mind; all it takes is some science or math properly applied and appropriate analysis.

      Mr. Shack has demonstrated to my satisfaction his probable position within the ranks of agenthood.

      Dr. Wood is different by my estimations, but it could be that I have been duped into having such a view. So be it.

      Dr. Jones is in the high 90% genuine. It is in the paultry low single digit percentages where an agenda line was drawn to remove all considerations of 9/11 being any form of nuclear event(s).

      As for you, Mr. HybridRogue1, what are you duped by and / or an agent of?

      Mr. Marquis, most of the above ire not directed at you.

      A. Marquis CIT wrote in another thread:

      Also, I have to say I am amazed that “Señor El Once” always finds a way to work in DEW, Judy Woods, no planes at the towers into nearly every single blog discussion. Amazed …and suspicious.

      What I find amazing are the many ways people make unsubstantiated proclaimations regarding the alleged negative nature of an entire body of work (e.g., Dr. Wood’s textbook, September Clues) without the benefit of the leg work into assessing each corner of its content and the preservation of nuggets of truth.

      Having been to those corners, I can assure you that they are ~not~ perfect or all true, unfortunately. My understanding stands on their shoulders but now deviates. Still, sufficient nuggets of truth are contained therein that necessitates we go there, we think about it, we discuss it. Derisive comments made from obvious ignorance are amazing … and suspicious.

    • Yes yes…Just so Señor,

      …but of all of that you just said – I am not interested in it.

      ALL I want to know is if you have the capacity to challenge Prof. Jones’ science.

      We are clear enough on what we think of each other.

      You know how it goes son – Put-up or Shut-up.

      ww

  41. Just for your elucidation Señor,

    You say:

    “I start by pointing out an example of your nasty habit of putting words into my mouth. When the discussion is brought here, you do it yet again. I have never mentioned the group “Journal of 9/11Scholars”. What do they call this technique of faulty arguments in the disinformation parlay?”

    It is not a faulty argument Señor, it is a form of deconstruction of your own argument. You surely know what the term “subtext” means. The subtext is gleaned from the underlying attitudes that MUST BE present in a speaker/writer’s context in order write or speak what is openly said.

    You say:
    “I have never mentioned the group “Journal of 9/11Scholars”

    Jones speaks for Journal of 9/11Scholars:
    Try as you may, You can’t just pick out Jones, as he is at the center of the core group that has been at the cutting edge of proving the official-story is utter bunk. All of these people are in agreement to certain core findings, having vetted each others views and proofs.

    So asserting that Jones is a fraud, is casting aspersions on this whole core group – who have willingly staked their reputations on a group effort.

    That is the context your argument sets in, whether you are aware of it or not.

    As I explained before, a characterization of what one has said is NOT “putting words into {your} mouth” – If I would have claimed to be quoting you – THAT would be putting words into your mouth.

    As far as the rest of your prattle, I am not going to address the issue of whether one must have Wood’s book to critique her thinking yet again. You have turned this issue into a carousel, and the music cranks up on every single post you make on these threads.

    NOW: Show Time

    …I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      A trait of a disinformation agent is to lead the readers in circles. Other traits include asking their opponents to perform research or calculations whose results the agent will then promptly ignore.

      Recently we see:

      Mr. HybridRogue1: March 4, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      ALL I want to know is if you have the capacity to challenge Prof. Jones’ science. … You know how it goes son – Put-up or Shut-up.

      Mr. HybridRogue1: March 4, 2012 at 2:19 pm

      …I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.

      At this point in time, all readers have to do is a Ctrl+F from within their browsers and search on “Jones”.

      Here are some of the highlights:

      ++++++++++

      Señor El Once: January 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm

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

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

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

      Señor El Once: January 28, 2012 at 7:53 am

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

      Señor El Once: February 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm

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

      Señor El Once: February 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm

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

      Señor El Once: February 13, 2012 at 4:16 pm

      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.

      Señor El Once: February 13, 2012 at 4:17 pm

      Mr. HybridRogue1: Have you examined these “wrongly oriented criticisms”?
      Señor El Once: I have. Have you examined the criticisms of Dr. Jones and nano-thermite?

      ++++++++++

      Returning to the original statement from Mr. HybridRogue1:

      I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.

      You waited needlessly, because the scientific critique of Dr. Jones was repeated more than a couple of times within this very thread.

      Such tiresome games you play.

  42. Señor,

    If you’ve got that in your head, surely you can say it in some comprehensible terms. Without making any negative cases to the contrary, is this possible? And if the molten metal is at the center of such an argument, keep in mind that such is a circular argument – if you simply say there is nothing else that explains than molten metal. Do you see that? It is a circular argument, no matter how convinced you are of it yourself, it is not enough in itself.

    A ‘nuclear weapon’ is an abbreviation of “thermonuclear” – they are all thermonuclear, and all thermonuclear reactions produce radiation. This radiation has a signature of heavy metals and radiant materials – and these are not merely ‘trace’ levels, particularly at ground zero.
    Boosted Fission Weapon: A weapon in which neutrons produced by thermonuclear reactions serve to enhance the fission process. The thermonuclear energy represents only a small fraction of the total explosion energy. [See Fission, Thermonuclear in your browser]

    Thermonuclear: An adjective referring to the process (or processes) in which very high temperatures are used to bring about the fusion of light nuclei, such as those of the hydrogen isotopes (deuterium and tritium), with the accompanying liberation of energy. A thermonuclear bomb is a weapon in which part of the explosion energy results from thermonuclear fusion reactions. The high temperatures required are obtained by means of a fission explosion.

    And let me point out that you have yet to provide a link to a by the point debunking of Jones – as per his critique of the nuclear question. You have offered vague synopsis, but nothing compelling besides your enthusiasm.

    ******
    “proof: – Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke – Mini Nuke – Nuke. It’s 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue – ZERO ANOMALIES”~Ed Ward MD
    ******

    “Nothing else known to man” – Proof?

    Exclude with finality that modern plastique explosives are incapable of the particular evidence in the debris pile. It is a fact that there is proof of such explosives in the particular evidence [See: Jones – Harrit].

    As per the rules of argumentum, which are in fact simply the rules of logic; Unless the argument begins with a PROOF that there is “nothing else known to man”, it is then the first duty to an argument based on this assertion to provide such proof. Until this is accomplished the assertion leads to an obvious circular argument: “Nukes had to have done it – nothing else could have – nothing else could have – therefore it had to have been nukes .”

    At that point in the argument the relevant proofs offered affirmatively would be those showing the signature of a thermonuclear weapon.

    I assert that such a signature is not in evidence.

    “The gamma spectrum of the samples was analyzed using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). The MDA [mimimum detectable activity] for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard. This is only slightly above background levels, which is not surprising, given that small quantities of radionuclides are used in applications likely present in the Towers.

    Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC)  ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074nCi/L of HTO. A split water  sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained  3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively.
    The quantities reported are extremely small, and, as the same report states, their likely source was tritium radioluminescent devices in the World Trade Center.”
     
    The only radioactive material that was found was tritium and small amounts of uranium and thorium from the granite and aggregate. No nuclear blast. No nuclear heat. No neutrons. No other radioisotopes.

    The quoted section on the radionuclides is at www.ehponline.org… and essentially says that the background of “thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides” is not unexpected. The things that would indicate a nuclear explosion would be a series of daughter elements that were themselves radioactive, showing a string of decay, or radioisotopes that were formed from neutron irradiation of the materials in proximity to any nuclear fusion device. No such materials were found.

    No materials from a bomb were found. No explosion was detected. No evidence of neutron irradiation was detected. Craters were only foundations and excavations after the fact. There is absolutely no evidence for a nuclear weapon.

    ww

  43. Further Señor,

    As per the plastique explosives; These include all the synthetic materials, such as RDX, C4, and on into the range of military grades that can only be postulated on the information in the public sphere from government scientists working in these labs – plus of course – a known signature of the nano-thermate used at WTC [Jones-Harrit]

    So all of this figuring is predicated on thermite – not the nano-grade thermate that only comes from the military if the product is still classified.

    Any pretense of dealing with an unknown quality by writing mathematical equations is simply symbolic mumbo jumbo:

    The unknown quality cannot be assigned a factor to equate. It is known from some public releases by scientists at these labs that these materials are “Designer” specific, they can be molded to react at precise specification. The are said to be capable of creating enormous pressures, and phased ignitions within the dispersion.

    Putting a factor, or a number to anything that you can only imagine or postulate about, will inevitably end up an imagined and postulated factor. This is more basic than grade school mathematics this is simple logic.

    This is where the “enormity of amounts” argument fails. The quantity will necessarily balance as per quality. The more powerful the quality, the less quantity demanded. Since the quality of power is unknown, the quantity is equally unknown as their factors are diametrically intertwined.~ww

  44. I read Dr. Cahill’s presentation at: delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt

    Dr. Cahill’s data on ‘anaerobic incineration’. ‘Anaerobic, Chlorine Fueled “Fire”

    Dr Cahill never once mentions nor intimates that this is evidence of a thermonuclear weapon.

    It is Ed Ward’s assertion based on his misinterpretation of this data.

    A hydrogen bomb ignites chlorine to form hydrogen chloride with the liberation of heat and light, a blast of immense pressure. So evidence of chlorine in the pile is actually evidence against a Thermobaric weapon, as the chlorine would have fueled the explosion, rather than remaining as a byproduct.

    ww

  45. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

    Ah. The shotgun technique. Or, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. All three of your postings take detours that are designed to misframe the argument.

    Let me fling these words back at you that you wrote not that long ago:

    ALL I want to know is if you have the capacity to challenge Prof. Jones’ science. … You know how it goes son – Put-up or Shut-up… I am still waiting for a “scientific” critique of Prof. Jones’ physics.

    If you want to substitute “validate” for “challenge”, be my guest.

    Use my March 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm posting as the starting point for your back-channel access to Dr. Jones. I’ve given my critique. Have him address them.

    Take your time, because I’m leaving for Spring Break this Thursday (Mar 8). I plan on prioritizing my time appropriately and enjoying thoroughly my little-to-no internet access (until Mar 21).

    ******

    Regarding specifics in your three postings to my one:

    And if the molten metal is at the center of such an argument, keep in mind that such is a circular argument – if you simply say there is nothing else that explains than molten metal. Do you see that?

    SKEW #1: You obviously missed the center of the argument, which was hot-spot duration. Molten metal is an off-shoot of that but related.

    Going back to the hot-spot duration, I’m open-minded enough to consider all options for how this was achieved. Are you?

    I am also open-minded enough to consider the weak areas of what I champion. Are you?

    Nano-thermite together with even the slowest burn-rates of the incendiaries seems to have many weaknesses that require unrealistic massively huge quantities. Something involving nuclear energy and fizzling but unspent nuclear material comes much closer to explaining it.

    A ‘nuclear weapon’ is an abbreviation of “thermonuclear” – they are all thermonuclear, and all thermonuclear reactions produce radiation. This radiation has a signature of heavy metals and radiant materials – and these are not merely ‘trace’ levels, particularly at ground zero.

    SKEW #2: I said that 9/11 was a nuclear event, and I made sure to make it clear to readers that I was including milli-nukes fusion-triggered fission, milli-nukes fission-triggered fusion, as well as mini-nuclear (or cold-fusion) reactors going critical.

    SKEW #3: You dodge the Dr. Jones scientific slight of hand that limited the matching of the measured radiation to only three publicly known types of weapons. When they didn’t match any of those three, all nuclear weapons or nuclear sources were ruled out by Dr. Jones.

    It doesn’t take a nuclear scientist to see the logic error in that.

    Further, no vetting was done on the govt reports that provided the measured radiation levels, which might have all too conveniently been juked low such so mild-mannered Dr. Jones could conclude they didn’t match any of the three known public types.

    Dr. Jones made no speculation into what could have accounted for the measured radiation. The measured radiation levels — whether or not 100% accurate — remain unaddressed.

    And let me point out that you have yet to provide a link to a by the point debunking of Jones – as per his critique of the nuclear question. You have offered vague synopsis, but nothing compelling besides your enthusiasm.

    You want a stinking link to a by-the-point debunking of Dr. Jones? Ask and ye shall receive: Look at the address bar of your browser for this very discussion and you will discover such a URL. This forum is it, baby!

    Non-science-challenged readers will know that criticism doesn’t have to be point-by-point. Most of Dr. Jones’ “no-nukes” paper is building up to the conclusions and for the most part are assumed to be correct (for now). The problem is logical. Dr. Jones could have concluded that “nukes of those three types” weren’t used; no problem. Instead, Dr. Jones leaped to his “no-nukes” conclusions without substantiation; big problem. Bigger problem still, the source for the measured radiation levels remains unanswered.

    I have read Dr. Jones “no nukes” paper. I do not claim to be the discoverer of all of the weaknesses that I bring up.

    I brought up Dr. Ward at one point, because he is the one who suggests through “boojie woojie high school chemistry” that Dr. Jones re-defined “background & trace levels” to be 55 times greater than their previous definition so that the published radiation levels could fit being “below trace levels.” Beyond that, I have lots of issues with Dr. Ward’s nuclear premise. In fact, Dr. Wood’s evidence of the prestine bathtub as well as seismic readings undermines Dr. Ward’s theory.

    Me? I put my mony on fusion reactors powering DEW devices.

    Any pretense of dealing with an unknown quality by writing mathematical equations is simply symbolic mumbo jumbo.

    In other words, not only did you fail “boojie woojie high school chemistry,” but you didn’t do very well in “boojie woojie high school Algebra, either.” We’re talking about a simple math word problem with two knowns and only one unknown. What is know are: the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and the burn-rate of thermite and various incendiaries. Do the math, work backwards, and run the numbers: massive and unrealistic starting quantities pop out of the equation just in accounting for one hot-spot burning only 4 weeks. 9/11 had more than one hot-spot, and validated reports have some of them burning many weeks.

    So, Mr. HybridRogue1, your Spring Break assignment is to escalate my criticism of Dr. Jones “no-nukes” conclusions to the man himself.

    Before you do, it might serve you well to review again both Dr. Jones “no-nukes” paper and my criticism of his scientific slight of hand. Don’t get yourself bogged down in nuclear minutia unless you have to, because the logic error is evident without such detailed understanding.

  46. Señor,

    You say:

    “..didn’t do very well in “boojie woojie high school Algebra, either.” We’re talking about a simple math word problem with two knowns and only one unknown. What is know are: the duration of under-rubble hot-spots and the burn-rate of thermite and various incendiaries.”

    This is the biscuit Señor: “..the burn-rate of thermite and various incendiaries.” You say this is a known quality, and that is what I dispute – burn rates, and in what conditions?

    You give us the “all packed in a hose” scenario and have a ‘burn-rate’ equation based on that.
    –This is a presumption that cannot reflect the chaotic reality in the pile.

    The ratings are based on what specific material? HOW DO YOU KNOW the ratings of various military grade thermates, or their sequenced timing properties? — You can’t know.

    In fact there is only one certain factor in this question – duration – All other factors require presumption.

    On the other page You say:
    “It is presumed that nano-thermite itself has a burn-rate somewhere in this range:”

    –Repeat that first phrase over; “It is PRESUMED…” One more time, “IT IS PRESUMED”.

    “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."

    BUT: a "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario." and a "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate" are in fact two separate things Señor. You base your 'duration factor' on the specific circumstance of a packed hose; essentially describing a fuse. That is certainly not the "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario"

    Do you understand that a 'burn-rate' of a material is not the same as a 'burn case scenario'?
    A "scenario' implies a variety of specific circumstances – A 'rating' defines one single controlled circumstance.

    So you have two ASSUMPTIONS posited as FACTORS as if these are certainties. Neither are.
    ____________________________________

    "Dr. Jones re-defined “background & trace levels” to be 55 times greater than their previous definition so that the published radiation levels could fit being"~Once

    I don't see this in the record anywhere Señor – what I do see is Ward claiming a 55-times greater boost of the radiation reading than the actual reading they recorded.
    ____________________________________

    Have fun breaking in your springs Señor, it is a pleasure jousting with you.
    ww

    • 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 following hair-split from you is like a blast of artic air blowing through your open trench coat and shrinking your atrophied science nuggets even more.

      A “s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario.” and a “s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate” are in fact two separate things Señor. You base your ‘duration factor’ on the specific circumstance of a packed hose; essentially describing a fuse. That is certainly not the “s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario”

      The scenario in question involved high temperatures, little oxygen, and a l-o-n-g burn duration. The WTC office content would have required oxygen to burn, and could not have reached the p-r-o-l-o-n-g-e-d high temperatures. Thus, we’re discussing options on additional demolition materials that could account for observed features. You say incendiaries and nano-thermite, right?

      I say, no. I’ve given your incendiaries and nano-thermite tons of leeway in terms of s-l-o-w burn-rates and stretching the materials out in an imaginary garden hose just like a fuse, so that it would not burn all at once: *POOF!!!* If a linear fuse is out, what other configuration would you have us install your beloved incendiaries that would have it burn even slower?

      ++++++++

      On the other theme: Dr. Ward’s writing can be somewhat muddled, so here is my edited version of Dr. Ward.

      From Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center which I believe is the document Dr. Jones gets his radiation measurements from:

      Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.

      => 1 [TU] = 3.21 [pCi/L], or 1 [pCi/L] = 0.312 [TU]

      Thus we have:
      => 0.164 ± 0.074 [nCi/L] = 164 ± 74 [pCi/L] = 51 ± 23 [TU]
      => 3.53 ± 0.17 [nCi/L] = 3,530.0 ± 170 [pCi/L] = 1099.7 ± 53 [TU]
      => 2.83 ± 0.15 [nCi/L] = 2,830 ± 150 [pCi/L] = 883.0 ± 47 [TU]

      In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs. Prior to nuclear testing in the 60′s, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs.
      - http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html

      => 20 [TU] = (20) * (3.21) [pCi/L] = 64.62 [pCi/L] normal high background/standard level

      Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium was 3,530 ± 170 [pCi/L]. Using the mean of 3,530 [pCi/L], divide the reference lab value by the background level:

      => (3530 [pCi/L]) / (64.62 [pCi/L]) = 54.63

      Means that the measureed value was almost 55 times higher than the normal high tritium background level.

      Dr. Ward says (paraphrased):

      Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, “Traces”. Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% – after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing – of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less.
      https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

      Specifically, right below the quotation on measurements from “Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center” that Dr. Ward proved to be 55 times trace levels, Dr. Jones writes in his paper “Hard Evidence Repudiates the
      Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”
      :

      Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter.

      Maybe Dr. Jones was being a bit lazy when he wrote the characterization “these trace levels” to indicate what was measured at the WTC, particularly in comparison to the HTO levels that a fusion bomb would produce.

      However, Dr. Ward is correct in his hair splitting that what was measured was 55 times greater that the standard 2001 definition of trace level.

      I have issues with some of Dr. Ward’s other analysis and conclusions, and he has demonstrated that never-yielding, closed-minded trait of an agent.

      Moreover, I suspect Dr. Ward’s factor of 55 might be proven wrong, too,… as being an under-estimate of the re-definition, just like my 3,000 fps burn-rate analysis resulted in an under-estimate of the imaginary garden hose length. It boils down to whether or not we can trust the govt reports on measured radiation levels. Despite lamenting the viability of govt reports in other venues, Dr. Jones swallows this govt report on radiation hook, line, and sinker. For this sin, he could probably be forgiven, but not for the leaping to no-nukes conclusions nor for allowing 9/11 yeomen erroneously extrapolating nano-thermite to the duration of under-rubble fires.

  47. “He believes that the sun-like heat from the mini-nukes’ “radioactive fragments” created the molten pools of metal in footprints of WTC 1, 2, and 7 that smoldered for 99 days.”
    ~ “He” being:“Anonymous Physicist,” (“AP”)

    http://norfidid.wordpress.com/part-2-of-4-were-mini-nuke-bombs-the-cause-of-the-wtc-destruction/

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

    …these 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.

    “Renown fire-protection engineering professor, Dr. Jonathan Barnett. He was considered expert enough to be appointed to the WTC assessment team organized by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers. After that interview, he was not invited to be one of the experts producing the 2008 NIST report on WTC 7’s collapse.(79)
    Prophetically, Barnett was quoted as saying that a definitive answer to the WTC 7 question was the most important question facing investigators. He followed that startling remark with the observation that some of the beams found in the debris pile appeared to have partly evaporated because of “extraordinarily high temperatures.”

    The author then adds: “The intimation seemed to be the beams were not melted by debris, diesel-fuel fires, or Thermate®. The primary cause might be vaporization caused by a nuclear weapon.”

    I have read Barnett’s remarks from around the time they were made, and the ‘intimation’ never seemed – “The primary cause might be vaporization caused by a nuclear weapon.”
    The intimation seemed tome to be the beams “were not melted by debris, or diesel-fuel fires.” Because any of these could not possibly melt and vaporize steel.

    However intimating that Barnett was “intimating” a nuke, jumps the logic barrier as Thermate® can indeed melt and vaporize steel.
    It is merely the authors bias interpreting that which Barnett might be intimating.

    The crux of the problem is, if there was radiation capable of sustaining heat, there is radiation in all it’s other capacities. An amount of radiation that would have been knocking the needles off of Geiger-counters – and identifiable by other instrumentation.
    Regardless of the proposition that the nuclear blast were interior to the building – the resultant blinding “flash” would have been visible and eye damaging.
    A third factor is EMP – all audiovisual equipment would have ceased functioning within at least city blocks if not miles.
    ___________________

    Señor, I understand that you are not necessarily on board with the mini-nuke theory in totality, that you tend towards some sort of ‘cold fusion’ driven DEW weapon [right?] – but I just want to get my critique of the ‘nuke hypothesis’ stated here. So this isn’t necessarily an argument made to you, but simply my further thoughts on the subject.

    ww

    • 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.

  48. “The heat isn’t due to their radioactivity. The heat would be due to those radioactive fragments fizzling in a nuclear reaction.”~Señor

    Ah Señor…WTF??? Seriously my man…putting the word “fizzling” between the words, “radioactivity,” and “nuclear reaction,” will not amend the oxymoron.

    “Nonradioactive radioactivity” is an oxymoron. It is a term that negates itself verbally, textually, and conceptually.

    A weapon exhibiting none of the effects of a nuclear weapon, cannot be a nuclear weapon.

    The nuke hypothesis does not make a credible forensic argument.

    ww

  49. Señor,

    You say:

    “First, we don’t know exactly what was found, and we can’t rule out nuclear fragments.”

    –As a matter of point – anyone there at the time of or within days of such a nuclear event would be fried by the radioactivity – if there is enough radioactive material to smolder the pile at incredible temperatures weeks after the event, the immediate aftermath would have been lethal. Not getting cancers in months or years, but full on high scale radiation poisoning in a matter of minutes.

    If such weapons were “tweaked” as you put, it to be less radioactive, then there could not be the amount of radioactivity to cook the pile. It cannot be both ways. Either the aftermath would be radioactive and cooking the pile – and by the same token have dealt death dealing radioactive poisoning to anyone in the area…or their was little radiation and the pile couldn’t cook, thus lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning.

    As per the supposed positioning of the blasts to avoid major EMP. If these blasts went off in the basements, the “bathtub” would have had catastrophic damage. If they went off in upper stories, you have your height for EMP “line of sight” trajectory. You are stuck with the EMP problem because the “bathtub” did NOT receive catastrophic damage.

    ww

  50. Dear Craig,

    This is just to thank you for giving me the opportunity to convey my September Clues research on your blog. I have sincerely appreciated your openness to listen to all sides of the decade-long 9/11 research. As you know, I was invited by you to share my first suspicions of 9/11 being a hoax – or more correctly speaking – a monstrous media-backed psyop. However, I notice with dismay that this thread has allowed itself to be contaminated with endless, circular debates and dog-and-pony antics, the kind of which I have grown all too familiar with along the years – and fiercely restrained from infesting my own discussion forum (www.cluesforum.info). .

    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.

    Now, since I have been called out several times on this blog as some sort of sinister ‘disinfo agent’, here’s a link to “everything you always wanted to know about Simon Shack but never dared to ask”: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2351730#p2351730

    Craig, I wouldn’t mind inviting you to my home in Rome one day. I simply don’t believe we need to be fearful for the stuff that we do. The foolish folks behind the 9/11 psyop aren’t stupid enough to whack the very individuals that expose their tacky, lying asses. The last thing they would want is to martyrize their nemeses. And here’s my call to every cowardly, ANONYMOUS INTERNET ENTITY wishing to discredit my work. Go ahead: call me a fool, a nutcase, a tinfoil hat – whatever you like – but pleeze DO NOT EVER CALL ME A CIA AGENT – or anything of the sort. It makes me sick and sad!

    Now, please look up the 9/11 media-fakery research compiled over almost half-a-decade at http://www.septemberclues.info – and the continuing media-fakery research at our watchdog forum: http://www.cluesforum.info – make up your minds for yourselves (as you switch off that TV set!).

    Thanks again Craig, for bearing with me – and with the aggravation which my presence entails.

    Kind regards

    Simon Shack

    • 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 could be pulled off in the several days that the bomb-sniffing dogs used for a pre-9/11 holiday. Whose a gatekeeper?

      Dr. Wood’s textbook is not without errors. One of its strengths, however, is in shedding light on the energy requirements of the cause to achieve the effects. This is a nugget of truth worthy of preservation, whether or not you agree with any cause (e.g., space-based DEW, spire-based DEW) you think she might be advocating.

      Your dogged unwillingness to go there (into Dr. Wood’s textbook) in an open-minded and objective manner despite a sincere offer of a free copy, is one of those disinfo flags for “can’t be bothered with the facts” or with assisting vetting the facts in a very laser-focused manner. For all your hate of Dr. Wood, I fed you red meat on how you could legitimately take down or weaken Dr. Wood’s concepts by finding the taint in her pictorial evidence. I appreciate the effort of some of your clues forum in looking into the task.

      I know you don’t like being called a CIA agent, and with your stated ancestry, you probably aren’t. If the 9/11 perps can sub-contract, outsource, and off-shore compartmentalized tasks to Mossad, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Al-CIA’duh, etc., you can remain free of CIA agent affiliations, but not necessarily disinfo agent taint, as exhibited by your forum’s science-challenged responses and my banishment. Gatekeeping, eh?

      [My banishment? Was that really necessary? I was taking my leave. Whatever happened to my requested limited immunity? So little do you value the nuggets of truth of your forum that you would ban me and strip away my ability to subscribe to it! Tsk, tsk.]

      Oh, well, Mr. Shack. The bright side is that my Spring Break starts this Thursday (3/8), so not having posting notification from your forum is a good thing, just like getting banned from Let’s Roll Forum last year in time for Spring Break also proved a good thing for my vacation.

      Without my subscriptions, I do hope that you will take the time to post items of interest here on Truth & Shadows so that I and other non-subscribers don’t fall too far behind.

    • Simon,

      Thanks for the bio. And I’m glad to have your contributions despite the hostility that the video fakery subject provokes in many truthers.

      The debates of late on this blog have certainly focused on disputes between hybridrogue1 and Señor El Once relating to the towers in recent days. I guess that because this isn’t a forum in the usual sense, people are going to debate on subjects that don’t necessarily fit with the article that has been posted. Of course anyone not interested in following the back and forth can simply skip to comments from others if they want. I can also step in if I think a thread is being hijacked for nefarious reasons.

      There certainly have been a lot of insinuations thrown around that one person or another is a disinfo agent, and perhaps I should have a rule prohibiting that. Accusations are easy to make and very difficult to disprove.

  51. “The heat isn’t due to their radioactivity. The heat would be due to those radioactive fragments fizzling in a nuclear reaction.”~Señor

    Ah Señor…WTF??? Seriously my man…putting the word “fizzling” between the words, “radioactivity,” and “nuclear reaction,” will not amend the oxymoron.

    “Nonradioactive radioactivity” is an oxymoron. It is a term that negates itself verbally, textually, and conceptually.

    A weapon exhibiting none of the effects of a nuclear weapon, cannot be a nuclear weapon.

    The nuke hypothesis does not make a credible forensic argument.

    Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

    You have a serious scientific misconception exhibited in your definitions.

    Uranium-235, as but one example, is in its natural state radioactive. That is, in emits radiation, albeit small amounts. When that same radioactive element is induced into a nuclear reaction, it tends to emit much more radioactivity.

    So, your whole “Nonradioactive radioactivity” drama figuratively and literally has no bearing. And I have to say, WTF? Your spin done spun out, crashed, and burned.

    I wrote:

    “First, we don’t know exactly what was found, and we can’t rule out nuclear fragments.”

    Mr. HybridRogue continues with a misconception:

    –As a matter of point – anyone there at the time of or within days of such a nuclear event would be fried by the radioactivity – if there is enough radioactive material to smolder the pile at incredible temperatures weeks after the event, the immediate aftermath would have been lethal. Not getting cancers in months or years, but full on high scale radiation poisoning in a matter of minutes.

    Radioactivity refers to the alpha, gamma, etc. particles being emitted by the nuclear reaction. Radioactive emission is one of those nuclear design features that can be tweaked. Had it not been for debris covering over the hot spots, maybe nuclear device’s (weapon or reactor) designed emissions would have fried [first responders] by the radioactivity. As it were, the fizzling reaction transferred heat through the debris that could be felt by first responders telling them to stay away.

    A couple other things to take into consideration. First Responders did not climb over every inch of debris initially. Between the dangers of hot-spots, holes, and falling debris (into and within holes), they were probably more prudent in how they got about.

    Simon Shack has made a convincing case the even images of the aftermath are subject to tainting. Control of the media, control of the crime scene, control of the visual imagery permitted from the crime scene, control of the message given to the public…

    If such weapons were “tweaked” as you put, it to be less radioactive, then there could not be the amount of radioactivity to cook the pile. It cannot be both ways. Either the aftermath would be radioactive and cooking the pile – and by the same token have dealt death dealing radioactive poisoning to anyone in the area…or their was little radiation and the pile couldn’t cook, thus lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning.

    The force of the misconception runs deep with you, Anakin Skywalker.

    The pile is not cooked by radioactiviy. The fizzling but unspent nuclear material would be radiating heat and well as radioactivity. The heat would transfer through debris to cook things. The radiated radioactivity would be contained by the debris and material surrounding and burying the fizzling nuclear reaction.

    Because radiation is a designed-in parameter of the nuclear device (weapon or reactor), because the radiating source was buried, and because we do not have a viable public record of how they approached 100% of the task and with what protective equipment they might deploy, the “lack of immediate deaths by radioactive poisoning” is easy to explain.

    As per the supposed positioning of the blasts to avoid major EMP. If these blasts went off in the basements, the “bathtub” would have had catastrophic damage.

    Mostly correct. Remember, we are talking milli-nukes whose blast effects are also dialed in, with the caveat that weakly-energetic nuclear weapons are harder to get executed as designed than strongly-energetic ones. Small nukes have a higher probability of fizzling than of nuclear reacting with the desired strength blast wave, heat wave, EMP, etc.

    The point is, the bathtub would not necessarily have been affected with a milli-nuclear detonation in the basement levels. Of course, a nuke going off at the foundation level would leave a seismic signature, I believe. If we can trust the seismic reports, I don’t think they indicate this.

    If they went off in upper stories, you have your height for EMP “line of sight” trajectory. You are stuck with the EMP problem because the “bathtub” did NOT receive catastrophic damage.

    Mostly correct as well. Remember that if things are blocking the line-of-sight EMP emissions, things like steel walls of the exteriour structure, like intact floors, or like falling debris, and if the EMP emission is forced to go through window slits, the EMP won’t hit outside targets on the streets and parking lot full strength. The WTC complex was evacuated and the public pushed back a couple blocks, which then positioned EMP blocking buildings in the way. EMP strength is a function of distance.

    It should be pointed out that the anomalous vehicle damage particularly along West Broadway and in the parking lot at the North-West corner of Vesey St. and West St., catti-corner from the WTC does suggest damage from large electro-magnetic fields.

  52. Señor,

    You say:

    “Mostly correct as well. Remember that if things are blocking the line-of-sight EMP emissions, things like steel walls of the exteriour structure, like intact floors, or like falling debris, and if the EMP emission is forced to go through window slits, the EMP won’t hit outside targets on the streets and parking lot full strength. The WTC complex was evacuated and the public pushed back a couple blocks, which then positioned EMP blocking buildings in the way. EMP strength is a function of distance.”

    I say you are partly right as well, but:

    “Line of Sight” for an electromagnetic pulse is not the same as the visual wavelengths, a powerful EMP can penetrate think concrete walls and most metals besides lead. A lead barrier is required to protect from such a pulse. A Faraday Cage is also said to have shielding properties, although there is controversy in that.

    As far as everything you said about Radioactivity – bullshit twirlybird word games. I’m leaving the topic of what “radioactive” is with that last comment.

    ________________Now…

    For Mr Shack,

    Who says:

    “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.”

    So this wise guy begins with a bald face lie: “I won’t name any names” -and proceeds to put the lie to his first assertion with : “two insidious, hybrid & rogue .”

    Then this gem from someone who’s whole career is based on mindless circular self “substantiations” of entirely subjective noise, he accuses myself and Señor of being of the “9/11 gatekeeping movement”

    But what is Mr. Shack’s real reason for dropping in? To open the ‘gates’ to his disinformation site by leaving more URLs.

    Why do I call his site disinformation? As I have pointed out before, I have quite a deal of experience in special effects cinema – it is my professional opinion that Mr. Shack is either:

    [1] a charlatan and a hack.

    OR,

    [2] a leader into endless speculation and confusion.

    And I would point out that I would have had nothing to say to Mr. Shack had he merely thanked Craig, left his little disinfo-eggs and gone on. But he had to be the blowhard spinmeister again.
    KMA Shack.

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      You are still partly wrong.

      “Line of Sight” for an electromagnetic pulse is not the same as the visual wavelengths, a powerful EMP can penetrate think concrete walls and most metals besides lead. A lead barrier is required to protect from such a pulse. A Faraday Cage is also said to have shielding properties, although there is controversy in that.

      True, EMP and EM fields are not the same as visual wavelengths. They can indeed penetrate concrete floors and some metals.

      However, your science-challenged understanding is mixing things up by saying that only a lead barrier can protect from such a pulse.

      Lead containers are used to store radioactive material, because lead protects against the naturally emitted alpha and gamma radiation. Lead is used in other protective barriers against radiation, like X-rays at the doctors office.

      A Faraday Cage is not made out of lead.

      Here is but one example from a 30 second google search that conductive metal needs to surround what you want to protect from EMP:

      If your shelter is not comprised of a conductive surface (i.e. metal) then it CANNOT be HEMP/EMP protected. … [A]n EMP shelter has to be specifically designed and fabricated out of metal (preferably steel, for low-frequency performance) with each and every penetration engineered to keep out EMP energy.
      http://www.hardenedstructures.com/genesisseries.html

      Why is an EMP destructive? The EM fields passing through metal generate Eddy currents. The larger the magnitude of the EM fields, the larger the Eddy currents. Large currents in the metal mean more heat that has to be dissipated. If the metal is a copper circuit board, such heat will melt the solder which can flow and short other things. Semi-conductors themselves have many layers, some metal. Large EM fields in semiconductors destroys the doping of semiconductor layers, while the induced currents in the metal layers literally burn it up.

      Protection for electronic devices is to put them in a conductive metal case. Of course, this isn’t guaranteed to save the electronic device, where close proximity to a large EM source might still heat up via Eddy currents the protective case that then “bakes” the internal circuitry.

      Lead, aside from being poisonous, isn’t very rigid or strong in solid form and has a low melting point. It is far from ideal protection.

      You wrote:

      As far as everything you said about Radioactivity – bullshit twirlybird word games.

      In other words, you did not understand it. And proof of that are your comments about lead protection.

      • Señor,

        I did not say a Faraday Cage is made out of lead. It is very clear from my construction and that it came as a second sentence. However lead is indeed a barrier to radioactivity due to it’s density. A Faraday Cage works on the size of lattice – very like the ‘screen’ behind the window of your micorwave oven. The size of the open areas of the lattice determines the wavelength that is deflected.
        _____

        And now this – you say:

        “In other words, you did not understand it.”

        Don’t taunt me with this trivial come-on Señor, I could very well say that you simply did not get the crux of what I have said, therefore, “you did not understand it.”

        If I say I will not address it any further it is because the matter is settled in my mind, and I find your going round and round with it useless and senseless.

        It’s simple Señor, just like any structure, in argumentum the construction rules are the same. If the foundation is made of sand, whatever the strength of the structure above – simply blowing the sand away brings down the whole structure.

        As the crux of the nuclear argument in an oxymoron, “nonradioactive radioactivity” – it is a base of sand.

        Whatever is built on this base is “baseless” – a house of cards.

        Now, as usual, you can chatter on about the subject as long as you like. Be my guest.

        ww

  53. It’s actually all very simple.

    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.

    All were faked via computer technology.

    Endlessly analyzing 100% faked video footage in order to somehow “scientifically” deduce the exact method of destruction used by the perps is therefor a complete waste of time- a bad joke, in fact.

    As for the “scientific method” revealed – surely the first rule of honest science is to firmly establish the authenticity of that which is about to be closely examined [i.e. video footage and still photos], FIRST, _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_, before proceeding on to theories about exactly what caused the destruction.

    This [verification of video authenticity] was never done by _any_ of the “scientists” [e.g. Jones, Wood etc.] now happily pontificating/arguing back and forth as to the “real” method used to destroy the WTC complex.

    Which, given the entirely fraudulent nature of all of the video/photographic imagery they have examined, means that their “scientific” methodologies [and their resultant conclusions to date from those examinations] were, and continue to be, entirely unscientific.

    Instead, it has taken the determined, independent efforts of a lone, unpaid 9/11 researcher with no scientific credibility whatsoever, to really question the underlying and fatal assumption made by every so-called 9/11 “scientist” and most everyone else,including myself, [that the events as broadcast on 9/11 were true and real representations of what happened that day] , and to expose the true, frightening extent of the 9/11 psy-op.

    This person should be thanked, not ridiculed.

    regards, onebornfree.

    • Onebornfree,

      “Nothing” and “Everything” are quite broad brushes.

      I did not cancel out Shacks work without investigating it myself. I have made some particular critiques to Señor, and have no interest in covering those bases again.

      As a professional special effects artist I can say with firm conviction that MOST of what was shown of the scene in NY that day is actual real video footage. I have studied Shacks assertions closely enough to say that it is for the most part bunk.

      You have every right to your own opinions. I have no wish to silence you. But if I think you are wrong….well there it is. I think you are having your head spun by a bevy of con artists.

      Good luck with that.

      ww

      • Oh, so you are a “professional special effects artist”, Hybridrogue, are you? And you cannot see anything wrong with the 9/11 imagery? Amazing… Oh…wait! Perhaps you are playing with words here – and by “professional special effects artist” you are subtly outing yourself as a “professional special effects artist” – in a metaphorical way? Yes, a ‘special effects artist’ you are, undoubtedly!

        See, if I had been your boss in a professional film studio – I would have given you the sack immediately – if you weren’t able to see ANYTHING wrong with the 9/11 imagery.

        Then you state that “MOST of what was shown of the scene in NY that day is actual real video footage”. MOST? This obviously implies that you think SOME was fake. Can you please point out which imagery, in your opinion, was NOT REAL VIDEO FOOTAGE that day?

        Thanks!

      • Mr. Shack,

        Yes, special effects artist for some twenty years on major motion pictures, as well as entertainment industry [theme parks. etc.].

        You will never be a boss in a special effects studio, so step down from your high horse.

        As far as proving anything to you, I feel no the slightest inclination, nor need to do so.

        As a matter of fact, I find it distasteful conversing with you at all.

        ~Willy Whitten

        • No kidding, “Hybridrogue”! ! Are you actually the Great Willy Whitten?

          http://www.manitouj.com/whitten/whitten_bio.htm

          Love your bio – especially the part which says you’re gifted with natural talent – and a unique vision!

          “Fluent in an extensive variety of media and techniques, Willy Whitten is that rarest of all artists: self-taught, yet acknowledged as a master craftsman. Gifted with natural talent and unique vision, Willy has extensive modeling and design experience in the demanding field of cinematic special effects, and in the last decade has been a creative artist on more than two dozen major films.”

          I am impressed! :O)

    • 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.

      As for the “scientific method” revealed – surely the first rule of honest science is to firmly establish the authenticity of that which is about to be closely examined [i.e. video footage and still photos], FIRST, _beyond_a_reasonable_doubt_, before proceeding on to theories about exactly what caused the destruction.

      You are overplaying your cards. Until image editing experts cast their critical eye on the 9/11 media, nobody had reason to doubt the authenticity of such 9/11 imagery. Moreover, it wasn’t always just the imagery that led to various hypothesis.

      This [verification of video authenticity] was never done by _any_ of the “scientists” [e.g. Jones, Wood etc.] now happily pontificating/arguing back and forth as to the “real” method used to destroy the WTC complex.

      True. And now we test their measure. If the imagery authenticity is proven invalid and if that imagery was used to substantiate a hypothesis, they have the opportunity to amend their hypothesis.

      Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:

      I did not cancel out Shacks work without investigating it myself.

      Just like Mr. Shack hasn’t proved that all imagery is fake, Mr. HybridRogue1 hasn’t proved that all of Mr. Shack’s work can be canceled out like an administrator stamping “CANCEL” on a form.

      This isn’t to say that Mr. Shack’s work is flawless and without error. I’ve discovered errors myself in his analysis of a few specific items, as well as an agenda that casts a depressing light on his work. “Distrust but verify” in this realm we must as well. Truth demands that the “but verify” be carried out: validate the nugget or not.

      Have a good Spring Break everyone.

      • Señor El Once Says:

        “Mr. HybridRogue1 hasn’t proved that all of Mr. Shack’s work can be canceled out like an administrator stamping “CANCEL” on a form.”

        Touche’ Señor, and yet, is this the test? Does the ‘work’ need to be disputed on every single point to be sufficiently addressed as overburdened with error? Must I go into such deep analysis when the foundational assertions of this theory are so clearly skewed? Or when the most basic concepts of digital effects technologies are obviously being misconstrued?

        The more I think it through, the more convinced I become that this ‘theory’ of “Digital Fakery” for all of the video from 9/11, is a PSYOP.

        Think of it, besides rare physical evidence for 9/11, visual evidence is ‘best evidence’.

        To erase this evidence as viable in the public mind, to call question to it, is to erase the ‘best evidence’ in this case, for it is the most full record as to analyzing the physics of the destruction.

        To me this looks like a ‘Pied Piper’ program. The only thing puzzling to me, is why the one running the PR aspect of this would have this job. He either doesn’t understand what he is talking about, or is counting on the reader not understanding what he is talking about.

        Just some general things I noticed while studying this site: There is a profound misconception of ‘perspective’ in these illustrations that show the “level line” of a building in the background…this line is horizontal almost perfectly aligned with the upper frame of the photo. This line is then dropped down to a building in the foreground in the same horizontal configuration, next to the roof-line of the forward building – which is ‘whoops’ not inline.

        But the ‘whoops’ is false, this is not the way a three dimensional nodal perspective grid would present this.
        Lines of perspective DO change relative to one another from various POV.

        What is interesting about this more than the error, is why such a basic error on forensic deconstruction of a still photograph? The very first point to establish is the 3D Perspective Matrix.

        Only then can any angular analysis be accurate.

        Another thing I noticed was discussion of ‘evidence’ of the use of a ‘clone tool’ in a still from a video. I explained to Mr. Once why this is utterly ludicrous some time back. Suffice it to say here, ‘cloning stamps’ are not used in digital animation, they are only for still photo manipulation.
        If a background ‘matte painting’ is the background, it could have such features – but only as a totally static shot. If there were the slightest movement, pan, or in-out zoom, the whole shot would have to be animated and all of it within the 3D grid as the master guide to the program. Such a still shot could be translated into what is called a ‘skin’ and synced to the 3D grid, but this would only tolerate a mid-range angular positioning because of lack visual of information beyond that angle.

        All of this really argues against the utility of using a static background at all. It is best for all elements of a digital animation to be done with CAD generated models throughout.

        I have been blunt, but for the sake of decorum have held back in giving a full assessment of my conclusions so far, on the Digital Fake angle on the WTC destruction. There are aspects of it that are so weird – as to being so blatant as to the idiocy of the propositions made, that one wonders at the convoluted intent of such a presentation.

        The author seems to let so much ride on the assertion that “no one has to date refuted any of the ‘evidence,” he presents. And yet what I see is such blatant blather that there seems no reason to point it out to anyone with any rational sense. And yet, as with seemingly anything, there are those who buy into it hook-line and sinker.

        The first aspect to this is the basic premise, that so much chaotic video footage from NY could be tied into this prefabricated digital set-up SEAMLESSLY. And regardless of the ‘examples’ made, the SEAMS supposedly revealed are based in merde chowder. This topic is a red herring.

        ww

  54. The time for speculation is over—9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.

    “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” – Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

    “This is one important reason to reject the ‘big tent’ mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn’t ever really split. There is another movement, adopting our themes, that has no particular dedication to the truth. I’ll call them the ‘9/11 speculation movement.’”~Truthmover

    Ten Years Later…the agenda moves forward.

    9/11 A GIANT STEP INTO THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    The perpetrators had unobstructed access to the WTC Towers for at least months. All that was demanded was ‘appearances’. Security was in their hands, thus the towers were in their hands.
    This is not theory this is proven fact, the interlinked directives of these entities have been charted out through the established records business/legal publicly known and cited.

    Kevin Ryan has perhaps dug the farthest from the ground up to the very peak of political power. Very important work going beyond the known interface between the corporate and the government and delving into the private sector of the ‘fictitious entity’, and how it is this which is the ‘power behind the throne’ — the same as always, “The Money Power” as the founders of the republic called it, “The Money Changers” is another term used in the history of the nomenclature of this power. Yes, even the ‘Pharisees’ – yes, just so.

    Understanding that 9/11 was a key into comprehending the NWO agenda should be the focus.
    Understanding who the real enemy is should be the priority. This simpleton “Cheney and Bush did it,” gambit is historically short sighted. It is much bigger than that. 9/11 was a systemic psyop, in no aspect outside of the MO of the system – it is a continuation.

    It is the SYSTEM which must be understood, the agenda, and how close to fruition that agenda is. These are CRITICAL days: on [FFWD>>]

    Again, I am not saying ‘drop 9/11′ I am saying, use it as a lens to focus on what it really meant.

    ww

    • I completely agree with you that 9/11 was a means to an end, and the end is the New World Order. Those who focus on Bush an Cheney (and the fantasy of putting them in jail) are missing the point. And those who focus on voting Democrat because they’re better than the Republicans are also missing the big picture.

  55. Regarding MSM video fakery, for those here with open, curious minds,[you know who you are!] here is a good link to start looking at the type of [still ongoing]work that has been done to expose media fakery.

    In all honesty, page 1 [of 20] should really be enough proof for the average individual here, but for those whose minds are already clouded by notions of already knowing exactly what demolished the WTC complex, who will therefor fight hard [psychologically speaking] against any/all video fakery evidence, simply because it threatens to destroy their own grand preconceptions,theories and “certainties” about what method was used to destroy the WTC complex [theories/"certainties" which they have taken so long to carefully construct], it might never happen, or at best take a lot longer to accept. Heck, it took me 3 years of daily review before I was finally convinced , simply by the sheer weight of all the evidence. [i.e "beyond a reasonable doubt", in my mind]

    Here is page 1 of the link:
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=3b44387deabc7515dc148d4eee5a53c0

    Regards, onebornfree

  56. My friend, Mr. Science says:

    PLEASE REMEMBER:

    Mr. Radiation is a very dangerous playmate.

    If a stranger offers you a piece of candy and it’s GLOWING – just say no!
    and run away really really fast!

    ww

  57. In thinking back on the days in the film industry, as considering a certain theory posited on these pages I suddenly remembered a sequence of events that happened around mid August of 2001.

    I was working at Steve Johnson’s X-FX studios in Burbank at the time. It was as I said early mid August, when Steve came in one morning, obviously freaked out. He was pacing and ranting and mumbling to himself, and when the studio business manager came in Steve immediately corralled him and asked him to come up to his office with him, he turned to me and said you come on up too this effects you…all of us.

    Up stairs, Steve sat behind his big desk and the manager and I sat facing him in a couple of plush chairs facing him. As he sat down he leaned forward putting his head in his hands and began growling into the desk, “I just lost three major shows – that were on the docket as “GO”. You know how much Disney has already sunk into “X” he said to the manager…they just dropped it – no reason given. They said “they decided” against the project – no reason, no argument allowed. It is off the table. The Ghost Rider show cancelled the same day, the director walked off, and the lead actor won’t work with anyone else, he’s gone, the producers say it’s lost. The Universal show got cancelled by an F-ing phone call just before I left the house this morning…I don’t know whats happening but I’m going to loose this shop…so much has already gone into these shows…”

    The manager spoke up, he said, “Yea and we’re not the only ones, big ticket shows are cancelling all over town…”

    Anyway, the rest of that early morning was coffee, cigarettes and Steve pacing and moaning out the details of how screwed everything suddenly was.

    So what was up in Hollywood?? Backers, producers, directors all pulling out of major shows, some that already spent close to millions in pre-production costs??? FOREKNOWLEDGE? Probably not specific, just word that some “game changer” was in the works, and it was time for caution.

    One show, called ‘Dreamcatcher’ pulled X-FX through for awhile, and Steve took on a Circe live show to be staged in Vegas…but he was right, it wasn’t long before he lost that big beautiful studio, and had a lot of financial ills to climb out of.

    I met Morgan Freeman on the Dreamcatcher show…a really nice guy, just like in his movies…

    ww

  58. Señor El Once says: “I hope that you will continue to champion September Clues and clues forum research, but please do it in a reasonable manner. ”

    On what basis do you believe that my posts should conform to _your_ personal standards of reasonableness? ‘Seems more than a little presumptive on your part. Are you perhaps suffering from the same delusions of grandeur that infect Mr hybridrogue1?:-)

    Anyhoo, seeing as you say : “Even the CGI planes crashing into the towers only inserted the requisite pixels to depict the plane, not model its crash physics. “, allow me to continue with even more of my alleged unreasonableness :-)

    _All_ of the videos [i.e. network or amateur] that depict an airliner flying into a WTC building are 100% frauds from start to finish also.

    That is: every pixel [buildings, plane, smoke, hole, sky, background, foreground etc.] ,in every one of them is also computer generated, as are the impossible camera angles [i.e the supposed position of the camera in relation to the objects being filmed] ,as are all camera plane-tracking pans, and all camera zooms. [all physically impossible- just like the plane-disappearing -inside -the -building -in -one -piece- without-even slowing -down event depicted]

    The fact that you have not grokked even that much at this late stage of the game explains exactly why you continue to harbor silly fantasies that only small parts of the rest of the network footage are faked, and the majority of it somehow depicts real world events.

    The psychological reasons for this are that you are so attached to your presumptive, unprovable, beloved theory of what destroyed the towers that an honest, neutral review by yourself of the mass of evidence of total fakery [as previously linked to] is impossible for you to undertake – you can only “allow” or concede to, as much video fakery to be true in your mind as will still handily allow for your own favorite, fanciful DEW destruction theory to still be possible [in your mind] .

    Any direct evidence of video fakery that directly challenges/threatens your own superior [and therefor "true"] theories of what destroyed the WTC complex is conveniently seen as depicting reality.

    In short, evidently your review bias is not neutral, but pre-biased towards the assumption of your own tower destruct theory being the truth,_before_ any evidentiary review is even commenced. Therefor your review does nothing more than handily prove what you already think you know.

    Good luck with that method!

    As I said before:

    “In all honesty, page 1 [of 20] should really be enough proof for the average individual here, but for those whose minds are already clouded by notions of already knowing exactly what demolished the WTC complex, who will therefor fight hard [psychologically speaking] against any/all video fakery evidence, simply because it threatens to destroy their own grand preconceptions,theories and “certainties” about what method was used to destroy the WTC complex [theories/"certainties" which they have taken so long to carefully construct], it might never happen,…”

    Regards, onebornfree

    • That’s the spirit Onebornfree!

      It is too bad that spirit is all you have. The spirit to call others delusional, that is quite an argument. Pointing to a page and claiming it is ‘self-evident’, when what is self evident to someone who understands digital animation, is that everything on that page is amateur hour blather.

      This page shows GIF animation, which is the crudest digital animation display one can work with and asks the viewing audience to determine whether the scene is actual video or as claimed on this page, a CGI animation. The accompanying text reads:

      “This is a clip from the NBC archives. It should be immediately clear to any casual observer that this visual representation of Manhattan is not real. It has all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation.”clues

      It is “immediately clear..” yes and it has, “all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation,” – because it IS – it is a crude GIF “animation file” – NOT VIDEO.

      From the same page:

      “Thus, in all probability, the oldest trick in the manuals of covert military ops was used: smokescreens. More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed – and no real footage exists of that brief event.”~clues

      “technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area.”

      –This is not so and anyone aware of all the video of that day knows that there are scenes close to the buildings with firefighters and reporters as the towers exploded above and the video captured the scenes – camera’s being totally ‘activated’.

      There are many other videos never shown on TV the day of the event, taken by pedestrian video-photographers that began showing up on YouTube soon after – from many varying angles. Their camera’s were not deactivated.

      “These images are an intolerable insult to human intelligence”~clues

      –This is true, the images as presented on this site are indeed an insult to our intelligence.

      ww

  59. Señor,

    I am going to go through the points on ‘duration’ as per the thermetic materials further. But since I already addressed it, and you didn’t take what I was getting at. I need to rethink my wording. I thought it was clear what I was saying, but by your response I see that you are still not reading me.

    But for now, let us address the nuclear issue yet one more time.

    You assert:

    “So, your whole “Nonradioactive radioactivity” drama figuratively and literally has no bearing. And I have to say, WTF? Your spin done spun out, crashed, and burned.”

    So Señor asserts that I have, “a serious scientific misconception” – because?

    Because, “Uranium-235 is in its natural state radioactive.” AND??? In what way has he “resolved” my poor “misconception”? Or even shown it to be a “misconception”?

    Uranium-235 needn’t be “induced into a nuclear reaction” it IS radioactive in it’s natural state. There IS nuclear reaction going on with 235 naturally – What the flack is this circular tango Señor is going about here? Let’s find out…

    An induced fission reaction. A neutron is absorbed by a uranium-235 nucleus, turning it briefly into an excited uranium-236 nucleus, with the excitation energy provided by the kinetic energy of the neutron plus the forces that bind the neutron. The uranium-236, in turn, splits into fast-moving lighter elements (fission products) and releases three free neutrons. At the same time, one or more “prompt gamma rays” are produced as well.

    But this clearly does not address our argument which is the pile of rubble “fizzling in a nuclear reaction” with it’s supposed “non-radioactivity”.

    If a radioactive substance is ‘decaying’ it is a nuclear reaction…the neutrons are “active”…again, WTF?

    All of this comes to, “It is NOT HEAT FROM A NUCLEAR ACTION….that is melting the steel, it is heat from “fizzling” – whazzat?? Is this ‘fission’ with-out fission, now called fizzion? [ Señor's bob'n'weave].

    U-235 IS fissile. In it’s natural state it is radioactive. But that has no relevance here.

    The CHAIN-REACTION is what you are trying to parse here Señor – but clearly the “chain-reaction” is not ‘fizzle’ it is fission = heat – great heat if your claim is true that it is cause of the melted steel {iron} and thus the hot spots of WTC. And this leads back to the rest of my argument as to the other missing signs of a fission/fusion bomb – lack of immediate radiation sickness, the other physical telltale signs of a nuclear explosion, etc, etc…

    ww

  60. This is one of those moments when, “The Silence Is Deafening” – as per the September Clues hypothesis…

    I am just wondering if that is a towel tossed in the middle of the ring?

    ww

  61. Craig, it looks like another post of mine, a reply to hybridrougue1′s March 9 post addressed to me , is not showing up here, nor in your RSS comment feed. Its been 2.5 to 3 days since I posted. Regards onebornfree

    • Onebornfree,

      I don’t know why you’re having trouble getting your comments through. I assure you nothing you’ve sent has been held back intentionally. The last comment I had from you prior to this one was March 6 (a duplicate post). For some reason I get the comments you send pointing out the problem, but not the one you’re writing about in the first place. If you click “reply” under the comment you’re responding to, it should work.

  62. I should like to know Onebornfree, how it is that you come to this space thinking you are the only one with a sparkling clear epistemic paradigm free of smudges or missing rooms? You speak to psychological issues as if you were a doctor of, where-as-yet that which you actually say betrays that.

    Not one who will take this criticism without ire, you are sure to react to this advice in anger.

    But that advice is: Have at least some knowledge of the things of which you speak.

    So I would hope that in place of another rant of quasi-psychological papsmear woowoo, that you would address some of the technical failures that I pointed out in the September Clues “hypothesis”.

    There are several posts in this thread that address specific technical problems in enough detail to make the case that Clues has a profound lack of comprehension of the ways that these digital tools work. But I am not going to repeat them – they are here, and I have not put them in propriety language of the various tool makers, but used general terms to make the issues clear to a layman.

    It is those points you need to address, not my state of psychological lucidity.

    ww

  63. Apologies in advance for defects in this posting, done from a foreign computer in a foreign country offline (and just a couple of quick dips online) with only vague notes on what I’m responding to.

    Mr. HybridRogue1 made the comment that the 9/11 video fakery stuff is psyops. I agree, particularly after seeing how the likes of Mr. OneBornFree and Mr. Shack make their unreasonable arguments — without substantiation — that ~EVERYTHING~ caught on a medium about 9/11 is faked. A defensible position would be that “most”, “much”, or “some” was faked. An argument of “all” is akin to 100%, a benchmark not reached, nor necessary to be reached, making it all the more ludicrous that this is what they claim. The purpose of the psyops is to raise such doubts that none of the imagery can be used to prove anything: take it all off the table. In addition, they create a sucking vacuum in the form of applying science to explain what did happen and its mechanisms.

    That being written, the video fakery crowd does have merit, particularly in the realm of pixel planes. Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1 represents the extreme ying to Mr. OneBornFree’s extreme yang by not acknowledging this or any of the nuggets of truth with regards to MSM’s guilty role in duping the world.

    For example, the validity of no-planes does not start-and-end with the errors in the pixel rendering of the alleged planes and their inconsistencies. Errors in the crash physics are involved, as are flying physics: the pixels moved at speeds in excess of what the alleged planes would have been capable of at high altitude, and would never have been possible at 1/2 mile above see level in thick air. The tail of the aircraft entered the steel buildings at the same speed it moved through thin air. The miraculous timing of many of the snippets — catching the planes on impact after multi-stage zoom-in’s, catching the demolition start after again zoom-in’s — are glaring instances of foreknowledge.

    My nuclear discussions with Mr. HybridRogue1 have been enlightening, mostly for how poor his understanding of nuclear physics, yet still he is there trying to cast dispersions on any thought in that direction, despite his own theories being inadequate to address energy requirements and duration. Just like Dr. Jones was called in to lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear means — weapons or reactors –, it appears that this is also Mr. HybridRogue1′s aim in this forum.

    Mr. HybridRogue1 can’t seem to grasp the difference between “radioactive,” “radiation,” and “nuclear reaction,” and he spins both their meaning and the meaning of my words into a confusion and inaccurate summary. In Physics 112, the TA for the lab handled Uranium with tongs from the lead box it was stored in from a secure part of the lab. The small levels of the naturally occurring alpha and beta radiation were not life threatening to him or the students for our short period of exposure and the protective measures taken.

    When Uranium is induced into a nuclear reaction, it releases much larger amounts of alpha and gamma radiation as well as energy. The design of the mechanism tends to optimize aspects of its by-products, like energy for a weapon in the form of a blast wave, a heat wave, an EMP… Of course, when it is a nuclear reactor, the reactions is controlled in a manner that would create no blast wave or EMP, would use the alpha and gamma emissions to sustain the reaction, but would have the chief by-product be generated heat that is used, for instance, to turn water into steam that drives turbines (mechanical energy) that turn armatures in a generator to net electrical energy.

    More than one way to create nuclear weapons exist. Some are more reliable than others. Reliability goes down, particularly when cranking the energy output down into a tactical form that would take out several floors of a building, as opposed to a city block (or city.) When used in tandem with other nuclear weapons and assuming the blast/heat waves didn’t decommission neighboring weapons, the amped up emission of alpha and beta particles of the first weapon could “kill” (fracticide) the other weapons by messing with their radioactive elements, thus causing them to not reach their full design potential in terms of energy release. Their nuclear reaction becomes a “fizzle” rather than a “blast”, albeit the fizzle and heat by-products of the fizzling nuclear reaction would last for long periods of time.

    Russia, Japan, and Three Mile Island all have experiences with “fizzling” nuclear reactions in a non-weapons application.

    The reality of 9/11 is that anomalous radiation readings were measured, albeit their actual levels may have been tainted in the reporting and need to be questioned, something Dr. Jones did not do. Dr. Jones employed some scientific mumbo-jumbo and dishonesty in “trace levels” to take them out of further consideration; he offered no explanation for the source of any radiation at GZ; and the vacuum was filled with nano-thermite. This is the line that Mr. HybridRogue1 defends, despite the glaring fact that the hot-spot duration clearly indicates that neither nano-thermite nor slow-burning incendiaries can account for it, just like they cannot account for whatever level of anomalous radiation was measured.

    I’ve been championing Dr. Wood, but I recognize that even this is not without error. She also doesn’t address the anomalous radiation measurements. Worse, she tries to explain away hot-spots by hinting that maybe there weren’t hot-spots. (And some of this may be because faked images were inserted into her analysis.) Back when I was in the Anonymous Physicists camp, he charged Dr. Wood with taking all of the evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event (e.g., multiple fusion-triggered fission milli-nukes per tower) and wrapping it under a kooky “free-energy from space” or “Hutchison side-effects of cold-fusion” umbrella. We know today that the military has operational DEW devices both for taking out missiles and OWS crowd-control. Thus, DEW shouldn’t be taken completely off of the table, if for no other reason than WTC-5 bore-holes and WTC-6 craters need explanations. DEW mounted on tower infrastructure and aimed appropriately would leave spires. My concern in the search for truth is that Dr. Wood leaped to “free-energy from space” to power DEW devices and didn’t consider what could be land-based and provide sufficient power to account for the massive energy requirements of pulverization, like a small nuclear reactor akin to something on Navy vessels. Pack that sucker in nano-thermite to get it to burn up its casing when done.

    Yes, Dr. Wood does make a lot of hay with Hurricane Erin. They set up their emergency command center on a damn peer, even though Hurricane Erin and its storm surge could have wiped it out and only makes sense if they knew they controlled it. Mr. Shack notes that hurricanes suck clouds away to make for better video manipulation backdrops. Hurricane Erin might have been stand-by, if not to clean up mistakes then to obscure the evidence further. HAARP’s weather controlling nature is one of those mechanisms that the govt would not want exposed. Why else would the MSM lock-stop shut-up about Hurricane Erin on 9/11?

    In summary, Mr. Shack and Mr. OneBornFree overly rigid stance about “all 9/11 imagery being faked (planes and demolitions)” is a tell. Whereas I could be convinced of the examples of fakery they have provided, their dispersive statements about that which they haven’t proven shoots that which they have proven in the foot. Mr. HybridRogue1′s true colors are showing in how he attempts to tackle video fakery (overly rigid in the other direction “none happened”) and hot-spots (mal-framing of physics and the evidence.)

    • Two points Señor,

      [1] “Fizzling” is a bullshit term having no real technical meaning in nuclear physics. You are making it up.

      [2] I did not say that there is zero digital tampering with 9/11 imagery. I said that the core of the September Clues hypothesis is hogwash.

      If you want to discuss a specific “pixel” problem – bring it forward, and we can look at it.

      ww

  64. “..despite his own theories being inadequate to address energy requirements and duration. Just like Dr. Jones was called in to lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear means — weapons or reactors –, it appears that this is also Mr. HybridRogue1′s aim in this forum.”~Señor

    Señor, Your whole argument against a creeping-wandering “smolder” of thermates in the pile relies on the argument you made concerning packing the material in a hose, the speed it would ignite in such a circumstance, ie, a “fuse”.

    BUT, as with the evidence of thermates in the dust, this is not the scenario we are dealing with. We are dealing with this material mixed in with other materials – not in one solid pile or mass, but distributed throughout the pile.

    Anyone who has watched I fire in a fireplace should understand the physics of what a chaotic wandering flare will act like; how a piece of paper can suddenly flame up from heat in the ashes.
    We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation – pretending that is the case is dissembling.

    You seem to be good with imaginings when they fit your agenda of nuclear “fizzling”, but ignore such imaginings with “thermatic fizzling”…I think YOU are the one who is fizzling, Lol

    This constant assertion that Professor Jones “was called in” by somebody to “lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear,” is based solely on your own suspicions with no verification of any sort beyond your own personal bias.

    ww

  65. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/175speed.html

    Analysis of Flight 175 Deceleration

    The following shows a diagram of a 767-200 overlaid on the Evan Fairbanks footage in After Effects, a video compositing program. By overlaying the 767 graphic over the plane the motion can be matched and any differences in speed of the actual plane will be reflected in the speed of the graphic overlay. After Effects shows the speed, in pixels per second, of a composited image in numeric and graphical form (highlighted in yellow).

    As can be readily observed in the diagrams below, the plane DOES decelerate when it hits the building: a small amount when the nose hits and a larger decrease when the wings and engine hit the wall. While the plane is in the clear the speed of the matched graphic overlay averages about 612 pixels per second. By the point of the last possible measurement, when the tail is just outside the building, the speed has decreased to about 502 pixels per second. That means that the plane in the Fairbanks footage lost about 18% of its speed.~Eric Salter

    ww

  66. Boeing 767 560 mph at 700-1000 feet altitude.

    Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175

    By John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series

    1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.

    2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.

    3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.

    4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false.

    ww

  67. So far we have looked at several of the issues of the ‘Digital Fakery’ and ‘No Planes’ hypothesis. As this proposal is being based in an accumulated fashion, one aspect supposedly adding weight to another, we see that what we have come across thus far are not “PROOFS” but plausible controversy.

    There is a sharp distinction between what may be plausible and actual veritable proof.

    As some of these so-called ‘plausible’ scenarios are examined further the less plausible they become. Consider the idea that the, “digital plane left the digital scar in the building.”

    Now consider all the other video of the scene for an hour later, with a physical scar exactly like the supposed ‘digital’ scar. This is the problem that leads to the assertion that “it’s ALL digital fakery” – for the concept to keep it’s feet this has to be the case – but that is simply irrational considering the vast penumbra of images of the towers from that day.

    I will pause here. And if anyone is keeping up with this, they can make their comments.
    I am curious of what they might be.
    ww

  68. Mr. hybridrogue1 wrote:

    [1] “Fizzling” is a bullshit term having no real technical meaning in nuclear physics. You are making it up.

    Unfortunately, a simple googling on “nuclear fizzling” proves how full of bullshit you are. Here’s what Wikipedia says:

    In nuclear weapons, a fizzle occurs when the testing of a nuclear bomb fails to meet its expected yield. The reason(s) for the failure can be linked to improper bomb design, poor construction, or lack of expertise. All countries that have had a nuclear weapons testing program have experienced fizzles. A fizzle can spread radioactive material throughout the surrounding area, involve a partial fission reaction of the fissile material, or both.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizzle_(nuclear_test)

    Mr. HybridRogue1 goes on with his ignorant bravado:

    [2] I did not say that there is zero digital tampering with 9/11 imagery. I said that the core of the September Clues hypothesis is hogwash.

    Just like I poke Mr. Shack that he has to prove “all 9/11 imagery is fake” before he can lay that claim, I clobber you with the much easier task of proving “the core of September Clues hypothesis is hogwash” before you can lay that claim. This, you haven’t done. Not on September Clues 1-9 or A-H individually or collectively.

    Mr. HybridRogue1, I detest call participants “disinfo agents”… unless their action and demeanor set them up to be such. Your four postings to my one sets you up as such. The content of your postings, as already exhibited above, proves it. I don’t think it is because you are stupid or incapable of googling/reviewing information to come to proper conclusions. That isn’t your assignment.

    Oh, goodie, goodie. We have below many examples below of you flailing about in ignorance, spin, and skew to maintain your a dubious argument that purposely directs objective readers from the stumbling upon an understanding of the reality of 9/11 that is closer to the truth. Case in point, you write:

    Señor, Your whole argument against a creeping-wandering “smolder” of thermates in the pile relies on the argument you made concerning packing the material in a hose, the speed it would ignite in such a circumstance, ie, a “fuse”. BUT, as with the evidence of thermates in the dust, this is not the scenario we are dealing with. We are dealing with this material mixed in with other materials – not in one solid pile or mass, but distributed throughout the pile. We are not dealing with a packed fuse situation – pretending that is the case is dissembling.

    Bullshit on many levels, and further proof that you are willfully and purposely misconstruing my points, either out of ignorance, lack of comprehension, or disingenuous intentions.

    My argument has nothing to do with the mixture of materials. Mix together (or not) whatever you like except that it has to have the ability to smolder very hot without Oxygen. Also, if your chosen material has a burn-rate anything less than the lower-bound 300 fps that I purposely chose, your material probably wouldn’t have been able to cause any of the destruction in the 9-17 seconds of an individual tower’s demise.

    My argument also has nothing to do with a “packed fuse” situation literally. The salient point that you consistently miss (in a very disinfo sort of a way) is quantity of chosen material required to achieve many weeks of burning. The volume of the 884k mile long garden hose translates into a “ginormous” mass of incendiary material that would be totally unrealistic to expect to have been slipped into the towers in the several days of the bomb-sniffing dogs pre-9/11 holiday.

    However, as the “884k mile long garden hose (or fuse)” metaphor would have it, this is a useful way of describing somewhat of how your mixture of (non-nuclear) materials would have to be configured in order to achieve the hot-spot duration, but with this caveat: the hot-spot didn’t move. Therefore the garden-hose fuse (if it existed) would have to feed the hot-spot like a garden-hose, but with this caveat: even a slow burn-rate of 300 feet per second is super duper damn fast who pressure alone if it were water in a garden-hose could probably rip the skin right off your bones.

    You seem to be good with imaginings when they fit your agenda of nuclear “fizzling”, but ignore such imaginings with “thermatic fizzling”…I think YOU are the one who is fizzling, Lol

    A noteworthy trait of disinfo agents in the deployment of ad hominem attacks in lieu of EVER admitting they were wrong.

    This constant assertion that Professor Jones “was called in” by somebody to “lead the 9/11 Truth Movement from considering nuclear,” is based solely on your own suspicions with no verification of any sort beyond your own personal bias.

    True. I plead guilty to the charge.

    Mr. HybridRogue1 continues to make his disinfo case using John Bursill, someone with his own disinfo reputation in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

    Boeing 767 560 mph at 700-1000 feet altitude. Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175, By John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series

    1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.

    Got the old peer review canard to act as an appeal to authority regarding what is or isn’t fact. To dispel this (non-)fact, let us be more accurate with regards to what was seen: pixels on the telly. The fact that these pixels are inconsistent from various perspectives casts reasonable doubt on whether they actually represented real aircraft. Piled on top of this are things like certain aircraft (of the four) not being scheduled to fly that day, certain aircraft (of the four) with no black-box info on the cockpit door ever being open mid-flight, Boeing documents that specify maximum speeds for aircraft flying at altitude that when exceeded lead to aircraft structural failure, the flying ability of the patsies, …

    2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.

    Gotta love the above slight of scientific hand. Such speeds refer to high altitude. They do not refer to 1/2 mile above sea level. FAIL.

    3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.

    The key word in the above piece of disinformation is “simulator.”

    Makes me recall the classic Star Trek episode and how recollection of Capt Kirk as a cadet beat some simulator that was designed for no optimal, no-win solution. The Cadet Kirk simply reprogrammed it.

    Simulations are also an issue with NISTs reports on WTC-7, where they have refused to release the software and the parameters they used to make 100 feet of free-fall (over 8 stories) plausible to the science-challenged media and public.

    In conclusion, Mr. HybridRogue1, you should take a lesson from me. You see, I don’t use everything from Mr. Shack or Dr. Wood, both of whom many consider to be disinformation. No, I just use the nuggets of truth. When you blindly rely on the the full extent of someone else’s disinformation, guess what you do? You got it. You provide another data point further pegging you as a disinfo agent yourself.

  69. P.S. The photograph that is presented at the head of this very thread is a fake, as far as I can see.

    As Simon Shack always says:” sunlight does not lie”, and yet I can count at least 3 buildings in that photo that are missing shadows on their requisite sides. [hint- the buildings are all on the left side of the photo].

    I’m certain that a larger version of the photo would reveal many more inconsistencies/anomalies.

    Also, if I’m not mistaken the photo is not an original, but a higher definition version of what was originally released with a lot less definition originally [i.e. released immediately after 9/11] ; the higher def. versions like this one generally not surfacing until 2007 or thereabouts. However I could be wrong on this particular photo [I am not the image expert that Mr Shack is ] although that [ later release, higher def.] qualification is true of many photos now in common use as ” photographic “proof” [of whatever], today.

    Regards, onebornfree

    • onebornfree,

      The image at the top of the page on my monitor is 6 x 4 1/2 Inches.

      The angle of the sun is at approximately 3:00 – upper frame about 1/2 inch in from R frame.

      The Z-point perspective is 1 3/4 inches up from bottom frame and 2 3/4 in from L frame.

      There are no shadow anomalies in this photograph.

      ww

  70. Señor,

    Imagine my shock to read this:

    “Unfortunately, a simple googling on “nuclear fizzling” proves how full of bullshit you are. Here’s what Wikipedia says:…”

    As I had tried all manner of google ‘fizzle’ terms trying to make sure that I wasn’t missing something…and google never brought that page up for me. So I have to admit you are right on the word fizzling.
    I’ll be….[fizzled – I guess}

    But then…regardless of terms, you’ve got ‘fizzling’ in the pile as your hypothesis…and that still means fissile material and the heat would have to be caused by the continuing chain-reaction. That also means continued radioactivity and if that ‘fizzling’ is hot enough to be melting the steal to cause the hot spots you have that extreme of radioactivity. And again, all that follows about that that we have argued back and forth about for these weeks.

    So I give you your word “fizzling”. But I still don’t buy that this is what happened at WTC.

    But then you say this:

    “Mr. HybridRogue1, I detest call participants “disinfo agents”…”

    –And with confidence I reply:

    BULLSHIT – you are DELIGHTED to use the fact that I missed finding that stupid word “fizzle” in my own google search.

    And now you are playing it for all it’s worth.

    And you say:

    “My argument has nothing to do with the mixture of materials. Mix together (or not) whatever you like except that it has to have the ability to smolder very hot without Oxygen.”

    –That is the thing about the thermates isn’t it – they produce their own oxygen.

    “Also, if your chosen material has a burn-rate anything less than the lower-bound 300 fps that I purposely chose, your material probably wouldn’t have been able to cause any of the destruction in the 9-17 seconds of an individual tower’s demise”

    –Again, it’s the “one or the other” game about the type of explosives used. And as you likely know the word ‘fizzling’ is older than nuclear technology and is very often used to describe a ‘fuse fizzling out”.
    I have posited over and again that there were several types of explosives and incendiaries used in the destruction of the towers.

    Now to present this as you do, that it doesn’t matter whether the explosive was packed in a hose or not is disingenuous – any containment vessel will mean a more efficient burn. It is when an explosive material is ‘salted’ throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened.

    The point I make in the mix scenario is not “burn-rate” which is only correct in a continuous ‘burn scenario’ and that is the whole point – wandering smolder throughout — not a continuous burn.
    Damn, I have made this point clear over and again – if you don’t ‘get it’ – don’t ‘buy it’ – fine.
    I am not going around that carousel with you one more time…

    I’ll address your other comments shortly…

    ww

  71. “Mr. HybridRogue1, I detest call participants “disinfo agents”… unless their action and demeanor set them up to be such. Your four postings to my one sets you up as such.”~Señor

    First of all Señor, I am not arguing with YOU with any great specificity. I am arguing my case to the general reader and taking your points to account as I do so. So my “four postings” to your one being interpreted by you as grounds for claiming I am a “disinfo agent” is based on your own conceit – that you are the only one being addressed here by me.

    By the way – I have admitted I am wrong about the term “fizzling” and am still baffled that my own google search didn’t turn it up – it almost seems like voodoo that you now come up with that info.
    Blows my mind actually….

    Anyway, to the issues of the September Clues, and that John Bursill is now one of your “disinfo whipping boys”

    A full flight simulator that takes into effect the aerodymamically abilities of the aircraft in different conditions including ground effect:

    Quote:

    “c. Effect of aerodynamic changes for
    various combinations of drag and thrust normally
    encountered in flight corresponding to actual
    flight conditions, including the effect of change
    in airplane attitude, thrust, drag, altitude,
    temperature, gross weight, center of gravity
    location, and configuration.

    Quote:
    n. Ground handling and aerodynamic
    programming to include:
    (1) Ground effect–for example:
    roundout, flare, and touchdown. This requires
    data on lift, drag, pitching moment, trim, and
    power in ground effect.

    Quote:
    w. Aerodynamic modeling which, for
    airplanes issued an original type certificate
    after June 1980, includes low-altitude level flight
    ground effect, Mach effect at high
    altitude, effects of airframe icing, normal and
    reverse dynamic thrust effect on control surfaces,
    aeroelastic representations, and representations
    of nonlinearities due to sideslip based on
    airplane flight test data provided by the…”

    –Flight Administration Regulations are one thing as per ‘safe flight’, but crashing a plane into a building is not ‘safe flight’ – and not in fact well beyond the structural integrity of the aircraft as some may have been lead to believe.

    I would add that personally I see it as possible the plane wasn’t a standard 767-200, but a military 767 under remote control autopilot. Either way I think real airplanes crashed into the towers.

    Federal Aviation Regulations
    Quote:

    “Operating Limitations:
    Sec. 25.1505 Maximum operating limit speed.
    The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO airspeed or Mach Number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations.”

    –This is obviously a statutory speed limit law – but the very last sentence proves that higher speeds are possible if “authorized” – so the statutory speed limit is not, even as considered here, a physical speed limit for this plane.

    In the abstract, this argument is like saying you can’t drive your car 120MPH on the highway because the posted speed limit is 65MPH.

    ————-

    http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8011

    [NOTE: This says "Operation Limitations - NOT: Structural Limitations.]

    Operating Limitations:
    Sec. 25.1505 Maximum operating limit speed.

    “The maximum operating limit speed (VMO/MMO airspeed or Mach Number, whichever is critical at a particular altitude) is a speed that may not be deliberately exceeded in any regime of flight (climb, cruise, or descent), unless a higher speed is authorized for flight test or pilot training operations. VMO/MMO must be established so that it is not greater than the design cruising speed VC and so that it is sufficiently below VD/MD or VDF/ MDF, to make it highly improbable that the latter speeds will be inadvertently exceeded in operations. The speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD or VDFM/DF may not be less than that determined under Sec. 25.335(b) or found necessary during the flight tests conducted under Sec. 25.253.
    All Boeing airplanes are certified to this rule.

    Therefore, intentional exceedance of Vmo/Mmo is not permitted *in normal operations. Exceeding Vmo/Mmo can pose a threat to exceeding design structural integrity and design stability & control criteria of the airplane. At speeds less than Vmo/Mmo the airplane’s flight characteristics have been confirmed by flight testing to meet FAR requirements. At speeds in excess of Vmo/Mmo, however, normal airplane handling characteristics are
    not assured.”~Dwain Deets

    [NOTE: Is anyone seriously considering that flying the plane into a building is “normal operations”? The term “not permitted” is statutory – not a law of physics.

    “The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn’t a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. ”~Deets

    Deets himself allows for the possibility that it “flew well beyond its flight envelope.”

    ww

  72. Well Señor, and Onebornfree,

    As neither one of you have actually addressed any of the points I have made about the “digital fakery” aspect of 9/11 – other than some vague yada by Señor given as “advice”, and Onebornfree’s current assertion – which is so bereft of anything substantial that I find it typically non-informative on his part…I seem to be left to my own devices yet again on the subject.

    I have never said nor implied that the core issues were the only issues – I merely point out that only a penumbra of errors can grow out of a base of error. A basic error begins a long chain of errors linking to it. The proximate error defines the end error.

    In street language the moral of the story is that one needs to gain a sense for bullshit. Because there is no business like bullshit – it’s business as usual.
    The more time you spend playing the games in the digital fakery carnival the longer you remain inside the System, it is for your distraction – whistles and bells and plush-toy prizes for the ego.
    —————-

    Concerning the drop of the mast atop WTC1:

    Etienne Sauret WTC1 v MSNBC is right and a bit higher than the Sauret video.

    The difference in appearance is due to the different angles of the two videos. The distance is flattened in zoom as well, so the difference of the closer camera would have less of this flattening effect – it appears that this is the MSNBC shot that is physically closer, and the Sauret shot is farther away using a larger Zoom app. What is happening in both shots is the antenna is falling backward. Being slightly to the L or R of that would give the appearance of an angle in one direction or the other. From the L it would appear falling slightly leftward – and from the R slightly to the right. It would only take a couple of degrees of camera angle to put this appearance to effect.

    So “backward” in this instance needs to be defined. And what that is, is a point in relation to the two POVs we have under discussion, the antenna mast falls straight back from the split difference of the two shots. If the scene was from the opposite side the antenna would fall forward. But this was obviously obscured by smoke from the other side. From above the piece is falling towards and into the thickest plume of smoke.

    A more sophisticated approach of analyzing these shots would involve locating some key points of the structure of the building and creating a 3D perspective matrix to find the true angle of the face of the building which is ‘almost’ straight on’ – but isn’t exactly. From there it could be calculated to what degree the angles of the camera’s vary. Because of the flattening of the Z-point [depth], it might be impossible to say which camera was closer or further away. As I have said, intuitively I think the MSNBC shot is physically closer, but I can’t even guess by how far.

    ww

  73. I just have to say one more thing about “Fizzling – nuclear” because it blows my mind…

    I put that into my browser [Bing not google] and I got a page that only had, I think, five pages referenced. All of these had to do with, “Is the nuclear industry fizzling out due to the Fukushima crisis?” The only other was a page from “HowThingsWork”…but when I pulled up that page all it showed was a long history of nuclear power and weapons…which never once had the word “fizzle or fizzling” in the text. [?]

    I don’t know why the wiki page Señor posted this morning didn’t show up for me.

    Yes, I feel embarrassed, and I apologize to Señor for my mistake.

    ww

  74. “In conclusion, Mr. HybridRogue1, you should take a lesson from me.”~Señor

    Hmm…{grin}…it is sure to disappoint you Señor, but I have read your “lessons” very carefully and found them wanting.

    Even the ‘lesson’ of discovering the word ‘fizzling’ is an actual word nuclear scientist use comes with a caveat:

    The definition of “fizzling” then, is a continuing ‘fissile chain-reaction’, which is precisely why you used the term – as I intimated previously. You don’t want to openly admit to the fissile chain-reaction, because that means the heat is fissile, ei, nuclear reactions with radioactive byproduct and all the issues surrounding that I bring up.

    And I gladly trade my error on the word ‘fizzling’ for your admitting that your problems with Prof. Jones are based on your own personal bias.

    Further; I don’t give a flying bat turd about your allegations that I am a “disinfo agent”…you have been swinging that club at me since I began posting on this forum. It’s old, it’s stupid and absolutely untrue.

    And as ad hominem, it does your arguments no good at any rate.

    So, In conclusion Señor, pertaining to ‘nukes’, ‘space beams’, and ‘digital fakery’:

    These ideas are oinking bullshit patties dancing on a woowoo griddle.

    ww

  75. So…what possible reason might the System/government choose to attack the visual evidence of the tower’s destruction on 9/11?

    One reason to attack the visual evidence might be this:

    “The most damming evidence to contradict the HICT is found in videos of the collapse and in the
    dust which spread out as the buildings collapsed. The special significance of these sources of
    evidence is that they are in public hands and cannot now be taken away. In particular the videos
    can be easily studied by members of the public and appropriate calculations performed.”
    ~Legge ‘Falsifiability’ – pg. -16-

    http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf

    As the attack on such evidence would of reasonable necessity be of a *scurrilous nature, the government itself could not be seen as the perpetrators of such a scheme. Therefore such a project would be jobbed out to those seemingly not attached to the government in any way.

    *’Scurrilous nature’ – By this I mean it is an absurd proposition, as I have illustrated throughout this thread. That proposition being that, “ALL of the videos and photo’s are digital fakes”. I have also shown that positing that the airplanes were digital fakes, must eventually lead to the proposition that all of the visual evidence after the airplane strikes are fake do to the damage the planes inflicted in plain view upon the buildings:

    Digital pixel gashes aren’t magically transported to physical reality.

    Now, to bend over backwards to be totally fair to the proprietors of September Clues, this is not to say that this is irrefutable evidence that they are an official government contractor. There is enough room for doubt in that they may be simply ‘useful idiots’. However it also does not remove a reasonable suspicion that they could well be a disinformation site.

    ww

  76. Strange Pixelation Pattern In Photo that Heads This Very Page!

    P.P.S. to all reasonable minds [you know who you are!]

    Again with regard to the supposed post-destruct photo that heads this page: in addition to the shadows that are strangely absent from the sides nearest the viewer of at least 3 buildings on the left side of that picture, also please notice [you will have to look closely] the strange pattern of tiny squares that make up much of the center reddish brown , and whitish colored rubble areas.

    These tiny, numerous squares are approximately 1/16 in. x 1/16 in. [in my screen the picture itself is 4 1/2 in. x 3 1/2 in.] and make up much of that alleged [photographically, that is ] post -collapse flattened area within the WTC area.

    Looks to me like nothing more than a Photoshop [or similar] textured masking/ patterning “tool” has been applied a little too hamfistedly. In any case, this photo [if it represented reality in any way at all- which is itself highly questionable] is obviously heavily doctored. Yet another reality fail.

    Regards, onebornfree , your friendly disinfo agent.

    • “Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”~Frank Zappa

  77. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

    My posting yesterday was prevented from being made, with WordPress throwing up a most curious message. I’ll probably be mining snippets from that in this response to you.

    And I gladly trade my error on the word ‘fizzling’ for your admitting that your problems with Prof. Jones are based on your own personal bias.

    Nonesense. I think Dr. Jones is a very nice person.

    My problems are with what Dr. Jones did that was misleading and unscientific. When are you going to admit that? The examples were: (1) redefining “trace” to be 55 times greater than its 2001 levels; (2) brushing aside all anomalous radiation measurements just because they didn’t match the radiation signatures of 3 known nuclear weapons type and offering no thought into its source; (3) letting science-challenge 9/11 yeomen such as yourself extrapolate nano-thermite into erroneously explaining features in the aftermath (e.g., hot-spot duration) that it cannot.

    I wrote:

    My argument has nothing to do with the mixture of materials. Mix together (or not) whatever you like except that it has to have the ability to smolder very hot without Oxygen.

    You replied:

    –That is the thing about the thermates isn’t it – they produce their own oxygen.

    Agreed.

    But you can’t seem to get it into your understanding the improbability of such thermates in reasonable quantities burning for weeks (and having radiation signatures.) You dance around these issues and play your little games, and that more than anything flags your disinformation agenda.

    Case in point, your write:

    –Again, it’s the “one or the other” game about the type of explosives used. And as you likely know the word ‘fizzling’ is older than nuclear technology and is very often used to describe a ‘fuse fizzling out”.
    I have posited over and again that there were several types of explosives and incendiaries used in the destruction of the towers.

    Shit, I can agree too that several types of explosives and incendiaries were used for redundancy and overkill and who knows what, BUT IT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOT-SPOT DURATION with quantities less than massively “ginormous.”

    Now to present this as you do, that it doesn’t matter whether the explosive was packed in a hose or not is disingenuous – any containment vessel will mean a more efficient burn.

    Sitting at this foreign computer in a foreign country, I can no longer contain my profanity at your spin and skew and disingenuous misunderstanding: $%&*#@ $#@#$!!! The garden hose was a $$%$ing metaphor! Its purpose was to get you to conceptualize volume and quantities.

    Your postings from a couple days ago suggested “salting” of incendiary material throughout the destruction caused the hot-spot duration. [sarcasm] Yeah, right. [/sarcasm]

    It is when an explosive material is ‘salted’ throughout a salad of other material and items that the efficiency is lessened. The point I make in the mix scenario is not “burn-rate” which is only correct in a continuous ‘burn scenario’ and that is the whole point – wandering smolder throughout — not a continuous burn.

    You are making things up.

    What you’re implying is that after large quantities of incendiaries were consumed doing what they were designed to do (e.g., allegedly pulverize the towers), massive ADDITIONAL overkill amounts of the same were unconsumed and “salted” and dormant throughout the pile until heat or something touched them off. “Salted” incendiaries still have their inherent burn-rates, and would burn relatively fast when ignited from their “salted” location under the pile. The hot-spots wouldn’t have been localized, they would have traveled to the “salted” locations; they would have been short duration; they would have been explosive enough to be a danger to first responders crawling throughout the pile; and they wouldn’t have had a radiation signature needing explanation.

    In other words, your lame explanation for thermates and other incendiaries still does not match observable evidence and testimony.

    I’ve already run some low-ball rough calculations on the amounts of a slow burn-rate (300 fps) incendiary required to achieve a continuous 4 week hot-spot: it was the volume of such incendiary that could fit into a 884k mile long garden-hose.

    Now you want to use the term “salted” to avoid a continuous 4 week hot-spot. So how was it salted? 1/10 of my estimate? 1/100? 1/1000? Even with the later, you’re still talking about the volume of such incendiary material that could fit into a 800 mile long garden hose. Ignoring the weight of the imaginary garden hose, what would be the weight of the incendiary material packed into the inner volume of that 800 mile long garden hose?

    Maybe you can find it in your science-challenged heart to admit that the weight of ADDITIONAL incendiary material to account for a “salted” 4 week hot-spot also represents a massive amount which is way beyond the baseline amount of what would be required to just bring down the towers.

    Even the ‘lesson’ of discovering the word ‘fizzling’ is an actual word nuclear scientist use comes with a caveat: The definition of “fizzling” then, is a continuing ‘fissile chain-reaction’, which is precisely why you used the term – as I intimated previously. You don’t want to openly admit to the fissile chain-reaction, because that means the heat is fissile, ei, nuclear reactions with radioactive byproduct and all the issues surrounding that I bring up.

    Yes, fizzling nuclear material would be the result of a continuing chain reaction, but obviously less ideal than originally designed for either a nuclear weapon or a nuclear reactor. Your weak understanding given in past postings suggests that you believe alpha and gamma particles would be radiating off of the pile giving the first responders radiation burns just for being there.

    First of all, the hot-spots were under the pile, which provides a barrier to contain alpha and beta particle emission. Second, recall that magnitudes of various radiation types are to a certain degree dial-in factors in the nuclear device’s design. Third, first responders have suffered a high level of sicknesses that parallel those experienced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.

    Radiation was measured at Ground Zero.

    For those seeking truth, those published radiation measurements should be studied carefully. For example, they weren’t measured at any of the hot spots or with any rhyme-or-reason grid pattern or with any regularity (that the public is aware of). They were measured at relatively far-flung points on just a couple of random days after 9/11. Between this unscientific measurement practice and what can be juked into a published govt report (ala NIST, ala the EPA), I wouldn’t trust their voracity. Although complaining bitterly about many other govt reports, Dr. Jones trusted this report. As far I know, Dr. Jones “no-nukes” non-peer-reviewed paper is about the only effort made by the 9/11 Truth Movement to address the fact that anomalous radiation was measured and with little to no speculation into its source.

    This should be a red-flag, Mr. HybridRogue1, because nano-thermite and a host of combinations of other incendiaries can’t account for it.

    [I]t is an absurd proposition, as I have illustrated throughout this thread, [that] “ALL of the videos and photo’s are digital fakes”.

    Agreed. In case you missed it, this is what I’ve been saying as well.

    I have also shown that positing that the airplanes were digital fakes, must eventually lead to the proposition that all of the visual evidence after the airplane strikes are fake do to the damage the planes inflicted in plain view upon the buildings:

    No, you haven’t shown this. In fact, it is ludicrous for you to make such a claim. I call this spin and skew.

    The explosions were real. The WTC tower resident artists could easily have planted artistic explosives to create the Road-Runner outline of a plane and created a really cool canon for launching aircraft parts (e.g., a partial wheel assembly, a turbine).

    So, In conclusion Señor, pertaining to ‘nukes’, ‘space beams’, and ‘digital fakery’: These ideas are oinking bullshit patties dancing on a woowoo griddle.

    First, you haven’t disproven nuclear anything: weapon or reactor. If anything, you’ve exposed your ignorance of science, because you have no explanation for the measured radiation and your explanation for the hot-spots is even easier to poke holes in due to the massive amounts of initially unspent incendiary material that would be required even to account for the duration of “salted” hot-spots.

    For several reasons, I’m not completely in the nuclear weapons camp for the destruction of the towers. I’m leaving the door open for mini-nuclear reactors providing the power to DEW devices. However, a tiny nuclear weapon might be just about right for hollowing out WTC-7 and causing its 100 feet of free-fall in its demise and neat destruction into its own foot print.

    Second, you haven’t explained the boreholes in WTC-5 or the crater in WTC-6, thus space beams can well remain on the table. Remember, it doesn’t have to be a mutually exclusive proposition about what caused the destruction of many WTC buildings.

    Third, you haven’t proven the premise of no-planes and its digital fakery wrong. You’ve only kicked up sand. To prove it wrong, you’ve got to address it point-by-point and all the clips amassed by September Clues that shows (1) inconsistencies in flight-paths from clip to clip, (2) digital errors [e.g., missing wings] in various clips, (3) lack of crash physics [e.g., tail entering tower at speed it traveled in thin air], (4) in accurate flight physics [e.g., too fast], (4) nose-in/nose-out, (5) miraculous zoom-in that does not show plane where it can easily be calculated to be in a reverse-play zoom-out…

    It doesn’t matter to me whether or not no-planes digital fakery remains on the table or not. The salient point of September Clues is that the mainstream media (or corporate media, or military media) had demonstrated foreknowledge and were a willing & active conspirator in what was presented to the public on 9/11, and their active participation in the cover-up these last 10 years is just as glaring.

  78. “The explosions were real. The WTC tower resident artists could easily have planted artistic explosives to create the Road-Runner outline of a plane and created a really cool canon for launching aircraft parts (e.g., a partial wheel assembly, a turbine)”~Señor El Once

    Nope sorry. The only possibility for the template shape would have had to have been mechanical.
    Perhaps some hydraulic affair to pull that area inward. It is obviously not the result of an outward blast. Plausible? Perhaps, but this leads into a realm of complexity that simply doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry about the Occam thing here, but it would have been much more practical to fly a real plane into the building.

    I stand by my visual analysis.

    As far as the rest of your post going around and around the same argument yet again – I have already told you I am not riding that carousel again. I stand by what I have said before pertaining to ‘nukes’ and ‘space beams’…fini. Let a candid world decide.

    There are radiation charts, yes and these show residual particles from Tritium. It is posited that these amounts can be due to such items as are known to contain Tritium in nearby landfills.

    As far as the incendiaries – thermite and thermate, there are physical proofs of the existence of these. All else is mere speculation

    As far as the point about the media being in on it. I have never doubted it for a moment. It was the media spin that generated the “official story” – indeed. But this was done mainly by persuasive dialog and allowing visuals and events shown live to “drop out” from any further broadcasts. Again, I reject wholesale digital fakery. There are bound to be some still photos going around that have been Photoshopped – it is so easy to do – but as far as the video, harder nut to crack, especially with so much actual video to outweigh it.

    The photo at the top of the page has zero shadow anomalies, regardless of what Onebornfree alleges.

    I am growing tired of marching over my same footprints time after time here.

    ww

  79. Listen Señor,

    I say what I think because it is what I think. It’s as simple as that. You may not like what I think, you may think that your thinking is the superior thinking.

    Yet one of the things I think, is that you have lost yourself in a maze of your own speculation. I think you have added a lot of rationale to this soup of speculation to create very mushy ‘hypothesis’ that seems to have very vague ground theory – just a lot of ‘nuggets’ rattling around in your epistemic sack that, to me seems as unstructured as a wrinkled paper bag.

    As I said before and will repeat here. I see these issues as a side carnival, a distraction. There is literally no end to where speculation can lead, nor any end to it, given enough time and energy to it.
    I honestly think that a lot of these “mysteries” are fabricated by speculation based on too few factual elements. Speculation that can neither be proven nor dis-proven given the known data.
    Thus I see it as futile speculation.

    It is your right as a free thinker to engage in what another finds futile speculation. I am not here to stop you from it. I have made my counter arguments here. I stand by them. So shoot shoot shoot, I am no longer concerned.

    ww

  80. Just one more comment Señor,

    You say:

    “First, you haven’t disproven nuclear anything: weapon or reactor. If anything, you’ve exposed your ignorance of science..”

    You have exposed your ignorance of argumentum Señor. I don’t have to disprove nuclear anything – YOU are the one that has to PROVE IT.

    As has been pointed out – over and again – thermates ARE PROVEN.

    Yes, I am sure I will still have comments for whatever boonswaggle oinkblister you come up with when you get to your own computer…

    ww

  81. And So, What would I advise we pay more attention to than the latest traveling 9/11 woowoo circus?

    Pay attention to the repercussions of 9/11, because the perps still run the show:

    The White House

    Office of the Press Secretary

    For Immediate Release
    March 16, 2012

    EXECUTIVE ORDER

    NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    http://farmwars.info/?p=8052

    ww

  82. For those who think this new Executive Order will not affect you because you think we are not in a “national emergency,” understand that WE ARE, with Iran as the excuse. Obama signed a “Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Iran” on March 13, just three days before the following E.O.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

    Edward Bernays believed that society could not be trusted to make rational and informed decisions on their own, and that guiding public opinion was essential within a democratic society.

    In other words, for a society to function properly it was essential to remove the democratic aspects of that society.

    Bernays coined the term “spin” to describe his techniques of emotional manipulation. When something is spun – it is twisted. It is twisted Newspeak to assert that a society stripped of it’s democratic aspects is a democracy. This is precisely what the Public Relations Regime established by Bernays has accomplished in maintaining the fiction that the US is a functioning republic/democracy.

    There is a lot of history that leads up to 9/11. If one is to truly grasp what this event means in context, understanding that there is no government as the public perceives such is essential.
    “The Government” is a stage play scripted by the Public Relations Regime.

    “The medium is the massage”~Marshal McLuhan

    ww

  83. Señor,

    You say:

    “It doesn’t matter to me whether or not no-planes digital fakery remains on the table or not. The salient point of September Clues is that the mainstream media (or corporate media, or military media) had demonstrated foreknowledge and were a willing & active conspirator in what was presented to the public on 9/11, and their active participation in the cover-up these last 10 years is just as glaring.”

    I disagree, the salient point of the mainstream media demonstrating foreknowledge and being willing and active conspirators in the presentation of 9/11 has been covered from the very beginning of the debate on the issues. It has been discussed ad nauseum by media critics for years prior to and post 9/11 that western media is the propaganda organ of the state, that the entire system is simply a Public Relations Regime.

    To think that the utter garbage presented on September Clues is going to illuminate the issue of media control by a despotic system is foolishness. The salient point to September Clues is that it is a distraction from real and pressing issues.

    ww

  84. Craig,

    I thought you might be interested to know that our favorite stooge, Agent X, has just shown up on my blog COTO…after getting shut down on the ‘sister site’ COTO2 a few days ago.

    He’s obviously desperate for a place to lay his droppings, probably has been scouting the browser since he lost that last thread…

    That he would dare post on COTO….Lol….it’s like a bleeding man fallen in a pool full of sharks.

    ww

  85. Señor El Once says: ” [I]t is an absurd proposition, as I have illustrated throughout this thread, [that] “ALL of the videos and photo’s are digital fakes”. Agreed. In case you missed it, this is what I’ve been saying as well…”

    As far as I am aware, for serious attempts at establishing truth after the fact [as with 9/11], there are only two methodologies in common, generally accepted use; they are :

    [1] the scientific methodology, and….

    [2] the legal methodology.

    Neither of these are perfect but if used judiciously and responsibly, as far as I am aware they are our best bet, assuming that truth, regardless of where it might lead, is the real ultimate goal of the researcher.

    Absurd Propositions

    Although I also disagree somewhat with your understanding of the scientific review methodology as expressed to date, those disagreements pale in comparison to those I have with you concerning the use of a legal methodology to try to discover/uncover 9/11 truth [as evidenced by your quote above, particularly the words "an absurd proposition"] .

    It is not an absurd proposition to initially pre-judge _all_ of the governments so-called evidence as most likely being false – in fact it is a standard, built in systemic requirement and assumption of the original US federal criminal law system.

    It is the way that that system is supposed to work- there is nothing controversial or “absurd” about it, or in taking such a position. “Run of the mill” in fact.

    It seems to me that, for whatever reason, to date you remain entirely ignorant [I am not trying to be derogatory here] of the US legal methodology and its principles, let alone its consistent employment as a useful methodology for trying to uncover 9/11 truth, where, for purposes of legal review, absolutely every single piece of so called evidence supplied by the government that it might use in a criminal prosecution of alleged perpetrators [ e.g.all media and "amateur" videos, "stills"+ soundtracks of the alleged criminal acts themselves and the entire area shortly after those alleged acts, plus all recorded "eye-witness" testimony" ], is systemically supposed to be held to a higher standard of truth and to be initially regarded by the court with the utmost suspicion, and most likely “tainted” at the very least.[via specific articles of the Bill of Rights]

    Again, _all_ evidence that the US government might use in a federal criminal trial concerning the events of 9/11 is automatically and systemically to be under high suspicion and to be regarded as most likely false until it can be definitively established as otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt – no exceptions, even _before_ any such evidence is ever even cross examined by the defense.

    Again: all government “evidence” is “supposed” to be automatically, unfailingly, systemically under high suspicion. [If you would like to politely discuss the philosophical reasons as to why the US criminal court system was initially set up with an automatic, systemic pre-bias against all supplied government evidence, we can do so, but not here- you'd have to email me at :onebornfreeatyahoodotcom]

    Automatic Pre-Bias – No Level Playing Field!

    In a US federal criminal trial there is supposed to be no level playing field for the governments evidence – the system is systemically designed with a never to be breached pre-bias _against_ the governments case and any/all of its purported evidence, and automatically pre-biased in favor of all defendants prosecuted by the government.

    Pre- Bias: The Individual Researchers Responsibility

    Now as you might be aware, the likelihood of a US, federal, criminal trial [even of a political "show" trial in a "kangeroo" court"], is slim to none existent, which means that in the case of 9/11 it is the responsibility of each independent 9/11 researcher/reviewer to install in their own mind, pre-review, their very own, never to be breached, systemic pre- bias against any and all government “evidence” that that individual imagines the government might try to introduce in the unlikely event of actual real life, federal, criminal trial.

    Which means that ultimately, even before any kind of private researchers “scientific” review of the 9/11 evidence is undertaken, that all of that purported government evidence is not to be held subject to the usual scientific lab standard of obsessive neutrality regarding the original source of any particular piece of evidence [as it ordinarily would be], but instead, all of that alleged evidence for review that might be useful to the governments case in an [imaginary] criminal trial, must be automatically viewed with a great deal of suspicion and pre-bias against it; and to establish actual authenticity, it must therefor overcome a systemic, automatic pre-bias against any/all of it in order to ever be judged as being truthful and reliable. [i.e. all media and "amateur" videos, "stills"+ soundtracks of the alleged criminal acts themselves and the entire area shortly after those alleged acts, plus all recorded "eye-witness" testimony" are to be held to an automatic, higher "burden of proof" and subjected to repeated, extremely close examinations ].

    Au Contraire Mon Frere!

    Therefor, it is not even systemically necessary for the maker of September Clues [or myself] to have to prove to yourself or anyone else [ as you would wrong-headedly insist], that every single piece of video or photographic evidence, or “eye-witness tesimony”, that might be useful to the governments case is fake; au contraire, mon frere, all we have to do is to automatically assume that it _is_ in fact so, exactly as the none controversial, run of the mill, standard operating procedure legal US evidentiary review procedure for _all_ criminal cases insists that we in fact do, and tries to ensure happens [via the these days much maligned provisions of the Bill of Rights] .

    “Bass Ackwards”

    To claim that it is our job to prove all video/photographic “evidence” is all fake is procedurally completely “bass ackwards”, and to have placed “the cart before the horse”. Procedurally, it must all be assumed to be false, until proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a higher standard of truth.

    I would propose that via the provisions of standard every day US federal criminal court principles/provisions and evidentiary rules, that procedurally, instead of automatically assuming truthfulness in any one case of government evidence, it is in fact the job of people like yourself to, prove that even_one_ single piece [let alone most ] of the governments “evidence” is in actual fact trustworthy and reliable, and that our own automatic assumption/pre-bias [i.e that all government "evidence" is to be regarded as false until definitively proven otherwise, to "a higher standard of truth", "beyond a reasonable doubt" after extremely close and detailed , private, "cross examination"], is both procedurally wrong and mistaken for any one particular piece of that so-called government-friendly “evidence ” .

    Bottom line: if you have not/are not conducting you 9/11 evidentiary review starting from an automatic, conscious pre-bias mindset that deliberately assumes the falsity, and questions the truth of any/all evidence that might be used by the government in an imagined 9/11 US criminal trial , then to my mind you are unwittingly failing in your role as a truthful 9/11 researcher, as well as being procedurally incorrect, legally speaking [according to the evidentiary submission provisions of the Bill of Rights for federal criminal trials], and more importantly, most likely wasting your time if you believe that your research will ultimately lead to any sort of useful conclusion about the events of 9/11 .

    Regards, onebornfree.

    • Onebornefree,

      Define “the government” in regard to your assertions above.

      In a tort action, which side is the “government”?

      In a suite between private parties, which side is the “government”?

      Let me clue you into something you may have missed here, just as per logic is concerned:

      I am not ‘the government’ – I highly doubt that Señor is ‘the government’

      You cite:

      “[1] the scientific methodology, and….[2] the legal methodology.”

      But there is also [3] common sense, and [4] logic…and I would assert that both of these must attend your first two methods. You might pay special attention to [3].

      ww

  86. Seriously Onebornfree,

    I don’t mean to be belligerent, but I wish you could make a clear argument. I wish you could explain what the relevance is to whatever it is you are trying to say in your last post.

    Why don’t you learn something of argumentation, of the techniques of clear writing, of arranging your thoughts in a simple construction.

    Your ramble scrambles all over the place and honestly doesn’t make anything clear as per issue and context.

    I am not clear on whether the “government” in your reference above would mean those ‘Prosecuting’ a case against who we believe to be the perps in 9/11, or whether you mean the “government” as the legal defense of those who were or are members of that ‘government’.

    And I don’t see how this can make any difference at all to Señor’s mode of argumentation. This is not a court of law, it is a blog for us to put our opinions to. The rules that should apply here should first and foremost be those of argumentation – for there is no ‘judge’ but the moderator, there is no ‘jury’ but the readers hereof, and there is no ‘defendant’ but for our various opponents in arguments, and there is no ‘prosecutor’ but for the various opponents in arguments.

    This is a debate – not a court of law.

    ww

    • Dear Craig,

      I was intrigued by Onebornfree’s comment suggesting that the image posted on top of this thread was NOT a truthful/legit photographic representation of Ground Zero.

      After my personal, careful analysis, this appears to be indeed the case:

      AERIAL IMAGE OF GROUND ZERO PROVEN MANIPULATED
      http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2366798#p2366798

      I would humbly suggest that you now consider removing this image or/and replace it with any other image of your choice – lest you may be accused one day of (unwittingly) abetting the 9/11 hoax.

      Regards
      Simon Shack

      • Mr. Shack,

        I took a look at your page here on the topic of the photo at the top of this thread. Unfortunately the only photo’s that loaded on that page were the large ones – but none of the ones with your arrows and contrast settings.

        Your use of the Contrast setting to dip the photo into stark contrast may sound convincing. However your assertions as to whether the ‘smoke’ would not add light to a shadow, being true in a live situation does not hold fast in a photograph. The smoke does indeed add light in the photograph, regardless of your proposition. Just a glance at the photograph shows this to be the case..

        Again, I don’t think you have proven anything other than your misconceptions of digital photography – and indeed your visual acuity in general.

        ww

      • By the way Mr. Shack,

        I finally got all the images to load on this Clues page…and everything I said about it in my following remarks stands – not only stands but is reinforced by actually seeing what you had described as your “analysis”.

        I will, out of decorum, skip some very colorful language that comes to mind here….

        ww

  87. “What is like is not”~Taoist saying

    I was a bit brief in my post above, so let me elaborate just a bit to make my point clear.

    I open with the Taoist quote, which is brief as well…so let me explain it for those who don’t see the obvious in what the quote says:

    If I show you a picture of a horse and ask you what it is, you may answer, “a horse”. But it is not a horse, it is a PICTURE of a horse. Thus, what is like is not.

    A picture is not the thing it is a picture of. This is rudimentary, but that seems to be where this conversation needs to begin, because a lot of false assumptions are being made in this very elementary level on this subject.

    A picture – in this case the digital picture of the aftermath – is nothing but pixels. It is not going to react in anyway to manipulation but in the realm of pixels, this does not translate in any way other than light, darkness, grades between and color values.

    Now you will note, that in the photo above, the materials seen through it are fogged, and lightened.
    That it is “lightened” pictorially, is no different than if it were ‘lit’ in reality. Understand, the photo can only give you the light information, and that information is all you can use, not assumptions based on how light and dark act in a physical setting. [like is not]

    It should be clear from what I have said here that it would not be surprising to find an area “lit” by the smoke pictorially to contain more contrast information than an area that is in deep shadow.

    And I will state one more time, there are no shadow anomalies in the photo above.

    ww

  88. Mr. Shack,

    Let me add this simple little point. Using the philosophy that you have developed for your analysis:

    If you blow a digital picture up far enough, you may yet convince yourself that the world is made out of little tiny squares.

    ww

  89. I sent the URL to the Clues forum under present discussion to a friend in LA, a highly paid professional in the field of digital art and photo manipulation.

    His response was short and to the point:

    “1. the guy’s an absolute moron as far as any knowledge of how digital images, photography (digital or otherwise) and retouching (Photoshop) work;  (“FACTS”)

    2.  and is entirely wrong in his conclusions

    that is all

    back to work for me!”~Steve Brown Design – 3/20/2012

    ww

      • Hi Craig,

        What I posted were Steve’s complete remarks.

        He is very busy – doing work in the exact field we are discussing here.

        He is doing TITLE work for film at this very moment – major film releases.

        It may be possible that he could be prodded to say more about this, and I could arrange getting his email to you. Perhaps he would take the time to explain to you. Would you care to do that?

        As Steve and I are generally on the same level of expertise, I would imagine he might make the very same points that I have been making here. He might use some variation of language, but I think any qualified expert in digital photography would have the same reactions to Mr. Shack’s ‘analysis’.

        I had written a little further on the subject addressed to Mr. Shack which I will add here…
        But first I will note that all throughout this thread I have made some very specific critiques of various aspects of Mr. Shack’s assertions. He has to date, not made any attempt to address these issues.

        I have posted URLs to the critiques of so-called “digital fakery” by Eric Salter, another professional in digital effects.

        I think you will find that any real professional in this field would dismiss Shacks ‘work’ at a mere glance. It is that obvious. By the same token, it is hard to get these professionals to take the time to give a thorough critique, because of the fact that it is so glaringly obvious that Shack’s whole approach is ludicrous.

        ___________________________My further remarks to Mr. Shack:

        Mr Shack,

        I have worked with literally thousands of photographs in Photoshop. I have seen countless examples of the “anomalies” you point out for your 9/11 shots, many from photos that were originally analog shots from 35 millimeter slides.

        The contrast settings will create demarcation lines as you describe for many reasons. That is what the contrast tool does, demarcate between the brightness and darkness in a picture. I have seen faces outlined in high contrast as if someone had drawn a line with a pen. But it is merely the result of the demarcation of the visual information between the flesh tones on the face, and the brighter or darker background. All you do with the contrast settings is eliminate the mid tones by the degree.

        You should also understand that atmosphere will often create a halo effect around objects in the distance. This can be undecernable at a mild contrast setting and then jump out at you in high contrast. There is so much to understand about common photo editing as a prerequisite for forensic analysis.

        I would wager that using your analytical approach, you could take a photo of your family at a picnic, and draw out the same sorts of anomalies as you do in these 9/11 shots. Seeing the way you deal with light source as a two dimensional plane on a three dimensional representation, I would predict that you would find ‘shadow anomalies’ as well.

        ww

      • Dear Craig,

        I hope you don’t mind me posting a little update to my analysis of the image you have on top of this thread.

        http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2366943#p2366943

        As for the laments of this ‘hybridrogue’ which appears to continuously spam his opinions here, I cannot help myself but asking you: Is it all worth it? Do you feel that your blog is enriched by such troll antics – in the name of “free speech”? See, my Cluesforum has a different policy – in that we promptly stop such entities from infesting our peaceful and thoughtful corner of webspace. This entails of course the risk of being called “ban-happy”, but what exactly are we to do – in order to counter the might and clout of the now obvious internet armada (for lack of a better definition) of government-financed 9/11 gatekeeping trolls?

        To be sure – all ‘hybridrogue’ has to offer is to call me a “moron” – by the proxy of his friend in LA – “a highly paid professional in the field of digital art and photo manipulation”. Does that suffice – in your mind – to convince you that my photo-analyses are wrong? Then, Hybridrogue also says:

        “If you blow a digital picture up far enough, you may yet convince yourself that the world is made out of little tiny squares.”

        Well, I didn’t blow up the image in question whatsoever. All I did was to analyze it. Hence, the only ‘blow up’ we can speak of is hybridrogue’s mendacious assertion of me ‘blowing up pictures to make a point’.

        Kind regards

        Simon Shack

  90. So let’s see Mr. Shack,

    You claim that all I have said here is that my friend said you are a moron, and the comment about blowing a picture up.

    And you still haven’t addressed a single substantive critique I have made.

    It’s very simple Mr. Shack, you are creating your visual anomalies yourself with tools that you don’t understand.

    A tool is only useful in the hands of those who understand it. I have described in some detail the misconceptions you demonstrate in your “analysis” – yet you seem not to grasp the weight of such critiques.

    I can see that because you have become familiar with using these tools, and have become proficient enough to put them into play, that you think this is all you need.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. It is in the conception in your head as to what you think you are accomplishing with these tools. And this misconception has to do with a deeper misunderstanding of the visual medium itself.

    If you would go over my comments to do with “Like is Not”, and try to get the gist of what I am saying there, and really think about it, you might get it.

    Otherwise, I give up on attempting to make you understand. My further commentary is to reach those that may be capable of understanding, because in reality your errors are very basic.

    As far as calling for me to be banned because you cannot seem to form a coherent argument to the points I have made, that is the very act of a coward that wilts under criticism.

    ww

      • Mr. Shack,

        As per your most recent offering of the original US Navy image.

        Did you check for proper contrast in this image yourself? “..as published on Wikimedia”
        How do you know the contrast is what the camera actually saw?

        The very first thing one does with any photo to be analyzed is to find the actual contrast, not relying on what changes may have occurred in when converted to the various ratios of the compression into Tiff, or jpeg or other.

        This is done by first dropping out the color…[Do not go to "Gray Scale" - that would loose the color permanently.] One drops out the color by bringing up the ‘Hue/Saturation’ appliance. Drop out each color using the saturation command until you have a B and W image.
        Now go to ‘Curves’ to assign your target values, this will automatically show you the highest points of bright and dark, along the 0-255 tonal scale. Make your adjustment accordingly.
        Now go back to ‘Hue/Saturation and replace the original color values.
        This will give you the true contrast values in your photo.

        ___________
        Now on to your most recent addendum to your analysis of the photo.

        You say:

        “This clarification has to do with building C (the US Post Office building).

        [1] “As we can see, the western façade of building C is brightly lit – as if the smoke in front of it were a light source – which is, of course, absurd.”~S 

        –This is NOT absurd, the smoke in front of it IS a light source:

        The fact that the haze or the smoke has brought refracted light into the shadows should not be a surprise; The haze is particulate, it not only blurs the underlying features, it lights them by reflecting ambient light. Thus there is more visual information than in deep shadow.

        So there are compound aspects of the light areas caused by the smoky haze; there is the refracted light of the lit particulates that make up the haze. There is then the separate aspect of that reflected light into the shadow. So there are in fact two indirect sources for the light in this area of the photograph.~w

        [2] “It should be just as dark (shaded) as the A and B façades. “Just as dark”? No. More precisely, C should actually be EVEN DARKER than A and B, since the C façade is angled even further away from the sunlight (as shown in my red frame):”~S

        –You are forgetting a very elementary aspect of photography here Mr. Shack; the Reflective Fill Light of the lit area in front of the facade. It is the very fact that C is angled more directly from the sun’s angle that means it is more directly aimed at the reflective fill light on the ground in front of the facade in question.

        This also is the reason that the other facades are darker, as well as the buildings nearby creating an alley of darkness where the ground in front is not lit, so the fill light is missing that facade C is getting.

        ww

  91. One more thing Mr. Shack,

    As to your simpleton single angle of the sun.

    Do you not see that the photo represents a variety of angles in a circular splay from the focal point out to the edges? This isn’t such a slight matter as you may assume. It can be clearly seen that there is extreme angular dissonance from the left and right. If you were to splice out the middle section of this photo, and place the side pieces back together you would see the distinct V shape created by the angular aspect. This would mean the angle of the sun hitting the frame is changed from side to side as well as top to bottom…in fact the circular splay I mention at the beginning.

    ww

    • Dear Willy (aka Hybridrogue),

      You are free to provide photographic examples of a building façade in full shade being lit by any sort of damp/haze/smoke. Since you claim to have “worked with literally thousands of photographs in Photoshop”, I am sure one of these thousands of photographs may help prove your point. If not, choose any image you like – but make sure it has a verifiable source. Let us know where we can view your own photo analyses. Just babbling about photographic issues on this blog won’t cut it. Thanks!

  92. “Just babbling about photographic issues on this blog won’t cut it.”

    Having no conceptual counter you merely dismiss my critique as “babble”.

    You are well aware of the issues I brought up, and since you can make no reasonable reply you hope to hand wave them away with giving me a task to go through a library of photos in search of something similar.

    Are you actually incapable of giving a well reasoned response? I think this is the case.

    “When a brightness/contrast filter is applied, this is basically what happens: the darks get darker and the brights get brighter – the smoky haze has already lightened the value of the shadows in this image considerably in relation to the shadows not obscured by smoke – Photoshop (or any other graphics app) is not going “look underneath” the smoke to see what value the shadows would be if the smoke wasn’t there – and then darken those areas instead – end of story”~Steve Brown

    ww

  93. Well Mr. Shack,

    I have never met an artist yet that couldn’t talk shop…someone that can’t argue their points – unless they were full of it and couldn’t make a reasonable argument.

    If you want to weasel your way out of the debate with such an obvious wave of the hand, that is your choice – and certainly not unexpected from the whack I have heard out of you.

    ww

  94. A lesson from high school driver’s education is not to use your car’s high beams in snowing or foggy conditions, because they’ll be reflected off of the snow or fog and blind you.

    Thus, in the image in question when given the direction of the sun, the placement of the smoke, and shading/lighting of the sides of buildings, Mr. Shack’s assertions about smoke not being a light source to lighten certain building faces are in error. Moreover, he focuses on the Federal Post Office, when several other buildings (like one catty-corner to the Post Office) also have light building faces on the side in the shade.

    Mr. HybridRogue1 has found other aspects within this one instance where Mr. Shack is trying hard in a dubious manner to run down the validity of this image. In my hampered research of the Clues Forum, I have found a few other instances where Mr. Shack’s analysis is wrong (in the collapse hoax), and many more instances that weren’t entirely convincing (in simVictims).

    The Latin escapes me, but Mr. Shack — in quoting OneBornFree from elsewhere in the ethernet — sums it up as “False in one, False in All.” Rhetorically speaking, is that how we should handle Mr. Shack, dismiss him and his research due to instances where he got it wrong? I don’t think so, but Mr. Shack does deserve a couple of spanks of the form “what is good for the goose, could be good for the gander.”

    Allow me to clarify that the isolated instances of errors that I found in Mr. Shack’s work (in fringe areas ala collapse hoax and simVictims) does not in my estimation outweigh the many instances of no errors that I could find (there and in core areas ala September Clues) and that were seemingly building to convincing arguments.

    A more decisive measure of that work is how Mr. Shack handles objective criticism. I loved this statement from Mr. Shack, which also provides a clue as to why my research of the Clues Forum (and its companion, Let’s Roll Forums) has been hampered:

    See, my Cluesforum has a different policy – in that we promptly stop such entities from infesting our peaceful and thoughtful corner of webspace. This entails of course the risk of being called “ban-happy”, but what exactly are we to do – in order to counter the might and clout of the now obvious internet armada (for lack of a better definition) of government-financed 9/11 gatekeeping trolls?

    You know, when you establish a gated community, you need to be aware of who you keep in as well as who you keep out. The character of the android Data of Star Trek:TNG said it best in one episode paraphrased: is your position so weak that it cannot tolerate dissenting opinions?

    For the sake of discussion, let us try a little Gedankenexperiment. Let us assume that the above image of 9/11 destruction aftermath is tainted. What would the digital manipulation of the image be trying to hide and why?

    I mean, it still exposes so many aspects of the demolition that the govt hasn’t explained: the neat flattening of WTC-7, the crater in WTC-6, the boreholes in WTC-5, half of WTC-4 being leveled, and lingering smoke.

    From my exchanges with Mr. Shack elsewhere, I’m guessing that he’d make the argument that due to his discovered (alleged) tainting, nothing about the image can be trusted… and fooey on the fact that most of the features in the image can be correlated with features of other images, because they are (allegedly) tainted, too… and fooey on the fact that most of the destruction features depicted in images haven’t been disputed by camera operators and on-site observers as not depicting the essential reality.

    I didn’t consider September Clues 1-9 and A-H (from what I recall) a distraction. But I am siding with Mr. HybridRogue1 regarding “side carnivals and distractions” like the more recent efforts by Mr. Shack to caste doubt on aftermath images.

    P.S. Mr. HybridRogue1, nothing has been vetted or questioned [and glariningly so] regarding radiation charts and reports on measured radiation coming from govt sources. “Garbage in, garbage out” in terms of those who mislead us based on this information and posit that residual particles from Tritium can be due to known items, like emergency exit signs in aircraft. The argument isn’t against the physical proof of the existence and usage on 9/11 of incendiaries — thermite, thermate, and others — as secondary or redundant mechanisms. The argument is that these can barely account for the pulverization of the towers but in no ways can account (for the radiation or) for the duration of hot-spots no matter how you spin it by massive quantities of unspent incendiaries being “salted” throughout the pile. Everything, including any effort to control the images and taint them if required, points towards a nuclear source (weapon or reactor to power DEW) for certain aspects of the destruction.

    On the one hand, whether thermitic incendiaries or nuclear powered mayhem, state-sponsored terrorism by the US govt on the USA is a point we can all agree on. Thus, nuclear discussions are a distraction.

    On the other hand, shock-and-awe got us into the mess. Shock-and-awe regarding the weapons that were used against us from our own arsenals is important knowledge for ~when~ it happens again. After OKC and 9/11, third times a charm, right?

    From “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:

    Before the discovery of Australia, people in the Old World were convinced that all swans were white, an unassailable belief as it seemed completely confirmed by empirical evidence. The sighting of the first black swan might have been an interesting surprise for a few ornitholoogists (and others extremely concerned with the coloring of birds), but that is not where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from observations or experience and the fragility of our knowledge. One single observation can invalidate a general statement derived from millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans. All you need is one singe (and, I am told, quite ugly) black bird.

    From an Amazon book review:

    “A Black Swan is a highly improbable event of extreme impact that appears obvious and explainable in hindsight. Psychological tendencies blind us both before and after the appearance of the Black Swan, making the Black Swan hard to predict beforehand, yet making it appear plausible through our rationalizations afterward.”

    From another Amazon book review giving favorite lines from the book:

    - Luck is more important than skill.
    - Risk is the most when you feel the safest.
    - Look for evidence that proves your ideas wrong.
    - There are no experts of things that move.
    - Too much information becomes toxic.
    - The wise plead ignorance to world events.
    - Be prepared for multiple contingencies.
    - “I don’t know,” is a sign of intelligence.
    - We are swayed by the sensational.
    - Seize every opportunity, for they are rare.

  95. Interesting commentary Señor,

    The theoreticals based on the Black Swan incident is very interesting, especially in the manner in which it rather dismisses statistics as meaningful as many would think it is. Yes there are limits to knowledge and especially certainty as per that knowledge.

    My personal epistemology begins at 0+1. That is, I am certain of one thing only – I AM. Everything else is a matter of supposition, even what I am. Then I get into acceptable suppositions based on experience, and building into conceptualizations of what this COULD mean. And then getting to the Omega point. And that is a long theological discussion better left to other venues.

    As far as our Wizard d’Digitalus Extraordinaire…the shack and jive show…

    For his reading pleasure:

    Look Shack,

    We don’t need any other pictures.

    YOUR pictures, with your mark-ups and commentary are enough to use as evidence that you have no idea of what you’re talking about. If you cannot defend against my critique of those pictures, which are the ones in question, then there is no reason to bring any other images into the discussion – other than a dodge away from your images.

    I have not only critiqued this one shot, there is a series of posts in this thread that challenge many other aspects of your false assumptions as to what you think you are proving. And you will not address ANYTHING. You don’t have a single word to offer for any of these points.

    This is why you won’t allow dissidence on your own site…you have no answers, merely assertions, and the power to shut-up any criticism.

    Meanwhile, by being butt-headed, you are missing the opportunity to learn something from some seasoned critics. Ignoring advice is how arrogance brings the delusions of hubris.

    ~Willy Whitten

  96. By the way Señor,

    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. This isn’t published yet, so I don’t know a URL for it yet…

    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.

    At any rate his remarks attend to it with his own approach to the question. I figure you would be interested in those remarks. And will likely dispute them…Lol
    But you and I have been through that, and I am fine with impasse on this head.

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      I’ll be happy to read Mr. Legge’s 9/11 nuclear and digital fakery review.

      I’m sorry to admit that going into it, my opinions will be jaded. I was less than impressed with the Legge/Chandler 10th anniversary 9/11 publication efforts that tried to knock out CIT flyover claims. The faulty foundation upon which they based their analysis was glaring even to a non-pilot such as myself. Turns out this was known months before hand, yet still they pressed on with their efforts. (And of course, I noticed their unrelated, unsubstantiated, but dismissive remarks of Dr. Wood and others. Maybe you should ask him to do a chapter-by-chapter book review of Dr. Wood’s book.)

      So like the tainted flight data recorder (FDR) information from that article and their unfounded and faulty suppositions about barometric pressure altimeters, I’m looking forward to seeing what scraps the govt throws his direction to help him dismiss nuclear mechanisms. I’m willing to bet that it’ll be based on nuclear weapons, that it won’t consider nuclear reactors (powering DEW), that it’ll rely on unvetted govt radiation reports (probably the very one that Dr. Jones uses), that it’ll make no substantial supposition into what accounts for the radiation, and that it’ll have no substantial supposition to account for the energy requirements of the destruction other than nano-thermite.

      But let me be surprised!

      Maybe he’ll have a nugget of truth that can get me to re-think and dismiss my 9/11 nuclear aspirations.

      BTW, I thank you for engaging Mr. Shack, viewing his analysis, and offering critique. You’re doing a stellar job. I have absolutely no objections to seeing his disinformation get rattled, although I hasten to add that much truth remains and we must be vigilant in our “distrust but verify” efforts.

      I have to admit that I’m running out of 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 too good to be true. Nothing like the current Republican circus to shed light on it from a different direction.

  97. Señor El Once,

    You make note of the Bernays and his invention of modern Public Relations. This is home-ground for me, where most of my studies have focused for the past 20 or so years. I was introduced to Bernays by the guy that runs Architecture of Modern Political Power. It’s been long since we’ve spoken and I have actually forgotten his name [yes shame on me].

    He is a systems scientist involved with mapping the human brain on some huge government project.
    At the same time, he turned his attention to putting a systems analysis approach to the modern political paradigm. So I hooked up with Bernays book, pamphlet really: PROPAGANDA. I got; PUBLIC OPINION, by Walter Lippmann as a companion, as Bernays and Lippman had worked together leading the propaganda campaign to manipulate US opinion in favor of the First World War…this and Col. House as Woodrow Wilson’s minder for the house of Rothschild makes for a deep and manic maze of a rabbit hole.

    Putting this hole thing together puts one in the dangerous position of holding positions that are deeply unpopular – ones that I am careful to breach even here. It does involve what can be termed a “Grand Conspiracy”…and yet, it is really in plain sight… McLuhan’s work can help in finding how a public naivety is such a deep cultural thing that it is invisible to those within that culture.

    At any rate, it does take years of study to build a cohesive panoramic nomenclature and framed structure to see the whole picture. It is of course at once, fractally complex, and amusingly simple.
    A primeval intuition has whispered that things were so all along, if you are aware of such inner voices.

    There is a positive side too, as ‘all is in flux – nothing is determined’…one of those personal epiphanies that I have had on this journey.

    Things truly are what they seem, if one has the nerve to look directly at it, face on.

    ww

  98. Email from Frank Legge
    :
    Let us take this a step at a time. There is no nuclear device that does not emit neutrons when detonated. Neutrons impacting surrounding material will cause it to become radioactive. This will be no mere trace but gross radioactivity. It was not found. Therefore no nuclear device was involved. 

    Furthermore it is impossible to make a nuclear device very small as a certain size is required for enough neutrons to hit fissile material inside the bomb and sustain the reaction. The smallest size is very substantial. What was observed in the destruction of the twin towers was countless small charges going off, layer by layer, approximately every third floor. That means about 30 layers per tower. Does your antagonist suggest thirty nuclear devices were used per tower? He might like to study this:

    Here is a good description of how to determine the minimum possible size:
     
    http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

    Regarding the duration of the hot-spots, the cooling rate of hot material depends on the volume of material. We do not know the volume. As we don’t know the volume we can make no calculations as to whether the duration was normal. All we can say, regarding the rather amazingly long duration, is that the amount of material must have been surprisingly large. The duration provides no indication that the thermitic reaction was still going on in a continuous manner. That is an absurd suggestion and no scientist is claiming it. 

    It is possible however that some pockets of unreacted thermite may have existed in the collapsed debris and were ignited later by the creeping fire. If this happened it might be detectable in the materials escaping from the rubble in the form of gas. This appears to be the case. See Kevin Ryan’s paper here:

    http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf 

    Such pockets of thermitic material going off later would lengthen the period in which high temperatures would exist. 

    Frank 
    ____________________________________

    This is the first if several email exchanges, and the most directly to do with the nuclear topic.

    ww

    • Good work, Mr. HybridRogue1 (and by extension Mr. Legge).

      I have just a few hair-splits. Mr. Legge writes:

      There is no nuclear device that does not emit neutrons when detonated. Neutrons impacting surrounding material will cause it to become radioactive. This will be no mere trace but gross radioactivity. It was not found.

      Not quite.

      As I’ve written before, radioactivity types and levels are side-effects that can be tweaked and dialed in to a certain degree. From the video provided and the mention of “gross radioactivity”, Mr. Legge is framing the discussion to be large nukes. Not the framing I put on it (were I actively championing milli-nukes).

      Let us not forget the whole song-and-dance by Dr. Jones’ paper that bumps up some 55 times the level that is considered “trace.” Who knows what downward juking of the measurement numbers happened in the govt report before Mr. Jones’ blind acceptance and analysis.

      I have no problems with taking nuclear devices (e.g., weapons) off of the table, maybe even for the reasons Mr. Legge provides, but appropriate explanations for the amped-up “trace” levels of radiation is still wanting.

      Mr. Legge writes:

      What was observed in the destruction of the twin towers was countless small charges going off, layer by layer, approximately every third floor.

      In the realm of mixing and matching incendiaries and explosives, I’ve given you plenty of latitude.

      Nothing excludes “countless small charges” being used in tandem with one or a few milli-nuclear devices (or some other mechanism with a nuclear power source). Stilting the argument to being exclusively nuclear devices (e.g., “thirty nuclear devices were used per tower”) is just another mal-framing. Pulverization was also observed and is an enormous energy sink.

      For the sake of this discussion and because I’m being lazy, let’s assume that the smallest nuclear weapon is still very substantial, and maybe even too substantial for deployment high in the towers. I know that cranking down nuclear yield increases the probability of nuclear fizzle, as well as the probability of fracticide between weapons inducing them to fizzle rather than explode.

      Thus, for these reasons, I’ve been careful in framing my argument as nuclear mechanisms that I have often stated includes nuclear reactors. Nuclear reactors to power DEW is my tweak to various hypothesis.

      Nuclear reactors do not detonate like a bomb and emit neutrons everywhere, unless breached of course. If deployed on 9/11, say, to power DEW devices, they’d be positioned lower in the tower will all sorts of debris landing on top to absorb and contain its radioactive badness. Nuclear reactors can possibly explain the amped-up “trace” radiation haphazardly measured and reported.

      Mr. Legge writes:

      It is possible however that some pockets of unreacted thermite may have existed in the collapsed debris and were ignited later by the creeping fire. … Such pockets of thermitic material going off later would lengthen the period in which high temperatures would exist.

      Going with this assumption of unreacted thermite and its primary role, we have the glaring exception to this hypothesis that such pockets of thermitic material going off would go off in a manner consistent with — oh, I don’t know, saypulverizing explosions like what they were designed to do in bringing down down the towers?

      I do not recall any testimony of creeping fire and its extent, but let’s grant this assumption. I definitely do not recall testimony of pockets of pulverizing explosions going off. Minor steamy/smokey flare ups when movement of debris allowed oxygen to reach buried hot-spots, yes; but not ignition of unreacted thermite.

      Mr. Legge writes:

      Regarding the duration of the hot-spots, the cooling rate of hot material depends on the volume of material. We do not know the volume. As we don’t know the volume we can make no calculations as to whether the duration was normal.

      This is such a cop out. Shoot, we know the duraction wasn’t normal. Any calculations into its normalness is a distraction.

      And is he talking volume of debris material surrounding the hot-spot to which heat is transferred, or volume of incendiary material causing the hot-spot? Well the latter is really what we’re trying to get very rough gross estimates on and get our heads around. The former is a complexity that can be added to the equation later. (When it is incorporated, it just makes the very rough gross estimates on the volume of the incendiary material even larger.) Therefore, it can be ignored in this early very pass.

      Mr. Legge writes:

      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”.

      Have Mr. Legge do the math using various burn-rates (from slow incendiaries to faster thermite to super duper nano-thermite) to come up with even very rough gross estimates of required quantities of “salted” “pockets” of unreacted thermite. The numbers are neither pretty nor reasonably believable.

      • Well Señor,

        I did give Legge your post with those ‘packed hose’ calculations. So he is aware of what you are asserting. Whether he is dodging this in some way, is up to your determination.

        Personally, I am willing to leave this ‘hot pile’ question as a mystery until there is further information that becomes available – of any kind – leading to whatever conclusions.

        I have only given Kevin Ryan’s paper a cursory glance…I’m going to go back to that and see if there are any clues [nuggets] that we might mull over.

        ww

  99. I would suggest Señor, that you read this paper by Ryan [lead author] on the materials and their properties that had been found or indicated [byproducts] at GZ.

    http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf

    It has quite a bit of fascinating details to trip the thinker meter on. Their analysis of the analysis of the information gained from freedom of info is well worth reading.

    I am thinking of contacting Ryan via email to see if he might be more willing to be more speculative than he is in the paper.

    ww

  100. 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.

    As you will note from the remarks below it is not assumed that this fire was a continuous thermate burn – which as we both note would be violent and fast acting – but rather other materials burning throughout finally coming in contact with pockets of unreacted thermates.

    I won’t speak to this again, as it has gone round and round like a carousel. I am just hoping the explanations in the Ryan paper might get you over that hump. However if you wish to cling to this DEW hypothesis – as implausible as I find it to be, it is well within your rights to make such speculations.

    “As for the effects of heat, the products of the pyrolysis of 1,3-DPP at 375°C are styrene and
    toluene, in equal amounts (Poutsma and Dyer 1982). This can occur directly in the dry
    composite (Kidder et al. 2005). Additionally, high temperature oxidation of toluene is known
    to produce benzene (Brezinsky et al. 1984).

    The spikes in VOC detection could also be explained as a result of the rapid combustion of
    typical materials found within a building structure. If energetic nanocomposite materials,
    buried within the pile at GZ, were somehow ignited on specific dates (Table 1), violent, shortlived,
    and possibly explosive fires would result. Such fires would have quickly consumed all
    combustible materials nearby. The combustible materials available, after a month or two of
    smoldering fires in the pile, might have been more likely to be those that were less likely to
    have burned completely on earlier dates, like plastics. Later combustion of such plastic
    materials, in violent but short-lived fires, could explain the spikes in VOCs seen on those
    dates.”~Ryan et al

    ww

    • 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?

      Kevin Ryan wote:

      The presence of energetic materials, specifically energetic nanocomposites, at GZ, has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC. Thermite … is such a pyrotechnic mixture that cannot be easily extinguished and is a common component of energetic nanocomposites. Unusually high detections of sulfur, silicon, aluminum, copper, nickel, iron, barium, and vanadium might all be explained by physical release of materials from such energetic nanocomposites. Additionally, the detection of 1,3-DPP at the WTC supports this hypothesis. Finally, the spikes in VOCs, detected by EPA on specific dates, are more readily explained as a result of short-lived, violent fires caused by energetic materials.

      I can agree with all the analysis in the above quote, especially the passage: “The presence of energetic materials… has the potential to explain much of the unusual environmental data seen at the WTC.”

      “Much” is not all. That is the point.

      An additional source of energy must be sought that can explain the aspects of the aftermath that energetic materials cannot.

      The short-lived, violent fires probably were caused by energetic materials. No problem. The problem is that the other hot-spots at Ground Zero could not be put out, despite:

      * 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).

      • Señor El Once,

        I take your obvious point:

        “* A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles (Lipton and Revkin 2001).”

        But this rests on the assumption that this Pyrocool was pumped into the pile exactly where needed – and as much of the battle against this continuing conflagration was fighting blindly, that which could not be seen from the surface, such an assumption may be false.

        Sometimes we need to allow for, we simply do not know.

        ww

  101. One Good Reason To Conclude That the Photo at the Top of This Page is Most Likely A Fake

    1] “False In One False In All” :

    “False In One False In All” is a term for a perfectly normal, unremarkable, “boiler plate” courtroom procedure whereby in a trial jury, if a witness is proven to have been giving false testimony, then the jury has the right to disregard/regard as false,any and all “evidence” supplied by that same witness.

    In the case of 9/11, why might a seasoned, private, individual 9/11 researcher assume such a position?

    1[a] General life experience:

    any 9/11 researcher who has reached any sort of adult maturity has inevitably discovered that even if they completely disregard the events of 9/11, their general life experience [assuming intelligent awareness of the world around them] , has , over the years, exposed them to 100′s of 1000′s of incidences where the government has lied to them, or “misrepresented” the facts.

    In fact any regular, “normal”, thinking US citizen should be acutely aware that the government does virtually nothing other _than_ lie, on an hourly basis, about almost everything it does.

    From economic statistics to the true costs of its “services”, from health care, to roads, to the wars it conducts publicly and secretly, the average individual is assaulted on a daily basis with lies, lies and yet more lies, directly from/by the government.

    This is “standard operating procedure” for it in fact. A perpetual lie machine. And that’s the truth.

    1[b] Specific 9/11 Lies:

    Furthermore, that same average dedicated 9/11 researcher has undoubtedly already found out the hard way, that much of what they have been specifically told about the events of 9/11 by the government is also a pack of lies from start to finish; I am guessing that probably any half-way decent, dedicated researcher has already experienced 100′s of bald faced lies by the federal government concerning the events of 9/11!

    Specifically in the area of visual, photographic and video evidence, there are on record numerous blatant examples of faked imagery, from planes impossibly gliding through steel and concrete buildings like “a hot knife through butter” or something out of a”Looney Tunes” cartoon, to the tops of buildings tilting at 20 degrees from the vertical, only to right themselves and then disintegrate before our eyes as if by magic!

    My Question:

    My question is: assuming the general life experience of your average 9/11 researcher [i.e 1000's of government lies over the course of a lifetime] as alluded to in 1[a], plus the 9/11 false evidence experiences generally referred to in 1[b] [i.e 100's of lies specifically concerning 9/11] , why, oh why , and for what good reason would an individual so experienced _still_ naively, and automatically assume that the photo at the top of this page is in any way genuine?

    At what point should such an individual researcher conclude that “enough is enough” and instead decide that from now on _all_ evidence, regardless of source, is to be automatically viewed as highly suspect and most likely false until it can proved, in their “minds eye” to be true, to a deliberately far higher standard of truth?

    Or does the individual researcher continue, time after time, while discovering ever more false information supplied to them by the government during their quest for truth, _still_ naively assume that the very _next_ piece of government information/evidence they happen to come across is going to be somehow ” real and trustworthy” ?

    As someone once said [rough quote] : “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result” .

    So exactly how many more times does the individual researcher need to be punched in the face with a pack of 9/11 lies from the government before they finally “get it” and assume “false in one , false in all” , “for ever and ever, amen” in every part of their lives where government “information” is encountered ?

    Self Responsibility:

    Of course, I cannot answer that question for the individual- it is their responsibility to decide when they get tired of constantly getting smacked in the face by government lies about 9/11 [and everything else] and instead assume the protective strategy of “false in one, false in all” .

    The Masochist, the Naive and the Deluded :

    Of course, a masochist would be perfectly happy to continue to be slapped around by this never ending stream of government lies about 9/11[or anything else].

    So are you [individual researcher] a masochist perhaps? [Or just plain naive, or deluded even?] :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.
    [p.s. specific shadow problems not addressed by Mr Shack to be addressed in another post]

    • Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

      I agree with the spirit of what you write and that the public should distrust (and validate or not) everything about 9/11.

      I disagree with certain specifics (bolded) in what you write in application to 9/11:

      “False In One False In All” is a term for a perfectly normal, unremarkable, “boiler plate” courtroom procedure whereby in a trial jury, if a witness is proven to have been giving false testimony, then the jury has the right to disregard/regard as false,any and all “evidence” supplied by that same witness.

      The assumption you make is that all images come from the same source, the same witness, and the same channels of editing and publication. They do not. They took many different detours in getting into the public realm. Even if we were to say that a certain class of imagery came from the govt (or the Military-Corporate Media), they also are not from always from a single individual.

      The image at the top of this article came from a govt source X. (It may have been some Naval or Coast Guard Recon Plane; let’s just call it source X for simplicity.) This same source X is credited with many high resolution still imagery as well as a video, if I’m not mistaken. This class of images shows remarkable consistency from image-to-image and in the video.

      [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU8L3YuIDus&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3%5D

      Tell us: is the image at the top of this article faked or simply tainted? Is the video above faked or simply tainted?

      The arguments presented by Mr. Shack suggest he may have found (subject to our opinions; he hasn’t convinced me) digital artifacts of tainting in the image at the top of this article. No explanation as to why it would be tainted or what such tainting would be hiding.

      • Señor El Once says: “The assumption you make is that all images come from the same source, ”

        Well they do, for heavens sake. They allegedly come from a paid representative of the US federal government!

        Is that not enough for you to doubt its authenticity ? If not ask yourself: “why not”?

        What are you saying, that your general life experience of the government and its lies vs. truth ratio prior to 9/11 is one of mostly consistent truth, or, that your experience of government truth vs. lies ratio specifically with regard to the events of 9/11 itself is one of mostly the truth?

        Are you saying that you know that you can trust specific parts of, or people within the US government to give you the truth about 9/11, and that some unknown [by you] US Navy photographer is somehow trustworthy?

        On what grounds would you make such consistently naive assumptions? [Beats me :-) ].

        Your Responsibility

        As I said in my previous post, exactly where an individual 9/11 researcher draws the line and starts assuming “false in one false in all” until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt as “standard operating procedure” in their own investigations, [if at all] will always be an individual researchers independent decision , one for which they must hold themselves fully responsible at all times, and will be inevitably based on their own personal experience in general over the course of their own life, with the 100% pure propaganda machine that is the US government, and also based on specific instances of government lies they have perhaps encountered during their 9/11 research [or not encountered if they go around with their eyes shut].

        If you wish to assume that certain parts of the government will tell you the truth about 9/11 and therefor that pictures certain individuals within it post on the internet represent real images, that is your choice and your responsibility, and there is nothing I can do, or would want to do about that choice [other than slap my forehead].

        Its your funeral, not mine .[Or to put it another way: "exactly what are you smoking- isn't it time to grow up ?" and: "where can I get some of that ? :-) ]

        I have suggested that should a 9/11 researcher have personally experienced, over the course of their own lifetime that the government continually lies on an hourly basis, to the exclusion of practically any truth whatsoever, and then should that same researcher have experienced a massive amount of lie-telling by the government specifically regarding the events of 9/11 itself, that it might be prudent for that researcher to in the future assume a defensive/protective posture of “false in one false in all” before going any further with their research, as the predominant frame of mind for that researcher,_prior_ to he/she actually taking a closer look at any specific piece of evidence[ such as the photo above], and also as a future frame of mind to be consistently applied to all evidence, from whatever source, that has not been closely studied to date. And even to evidence that has already been studied, but perhaps needs to be reevaluated in light of other developments.

        If you have not reached the point of critical mass yet and your personal life experience is that the government is in some way trustworthy, or even that standard criminal trial procedures in the US were originally founded on that very same assumption and not the exact opposite, then I am guessing that those are probably the main reasons why at this late stage you still presume to trust the governments photographic evidence in this particular instance [and others no doubt] , and I, on the other hand “do not trust it as far as I could throw it”.

        Personally, I believe it is both methodologically incorrect and also a serious mistake to start any review of said picture with the assumption that it any way represents the truth, because all you will end up doing is proving that initial assumption, _not_ getting closer to truth.

        Initial attitude/point of view/ bias is always of primary importance for correct review of any evidence.

        Regards onebornfree.

        P.S my very next post gets into a few more specific questions about this alleged piece of irrefutable government provided “evidence”, and might help further clarify my position.

  102. Onebornfree,

    You ask:

    “why, oh why , and for what good reason would an individual so experienced _still_ naively, and automatically assume that the photo at the top of this page is in any way genuine?”

    The simple answer is because it is a real photograph.

    And it is not automatically assumed. It is the onus of the one making the charge that it is fake to make a reasonable case for such. As you, as well as shack’n’jive, have zero comprehension of photography – digital or otherwise, you obviously do not realize that the both of you are in ‘check mate’.

    You make a general argument that the government is a serial liar, that any researcher will agree with. But the application of this to specific aspects as a general rule, we might as well say that there is no Washington DC, that all politicians are androids, that every single thing you see on TV, all the talking heads, all the scenes from any place alleged to be from a real physical location are digital animation.

    In other words Onebornfree, you blow out such absurd flatulence by having such an extreme interpretation, that what ever logic you display otherwise is totally left under high piles of dubious bullshit.

    ww

  103. A witness sits in the witness stand. This witness has just been proven a liar on countless instances.
    The prosecutor stands facing the witness and asks, “are you now sitting in the witness seat in a court of law?”

    The witness replies, “yes.”

    What happens next Onebornfree?

    Does the witness suddenly vanish to the dismay of all in the courtroom?

    That is the dilemma you are faced with in your dissertation above.

    There are lies.

    There are mistakes.

    There are reasonable arguments.

    And there are reasonable arguments that stretch and cross the line into absurdity.

    I have rarely read anyone who has run the whole gambit of these attributes so consistently in single posts, as you do.

    ww

  104. By the way Onebornfree,

    I do commend you for laying out your argument in a more structured manner. I was much easier to understand than some of your recent posts.

    Understanding what you are saying makes it much easier to spot the points, both valid and erroneous.

    I encourage you to keep it up, to learn to make your posts clearer as you have done here.

    ww

  105. Onebornfree,

    “Step outside, take a walk through the physical world and pay close attention as you look around.

    Only when you realize that this physical world is a digital fake as well. Then and only then, will you have reached Nirvana.”~Magus Maverik

    ww

  106. onebornfree — March 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm, says:

    “[p.s. specific shadow problems not addressed by Mr Shack to be addressed in another post]”

    Enough of the drum roll Ed, ………. WHERE’S JOHNNY?

    ww

  107. THE PANORAMA OF PARANOIA – THE PANOPTIC STATE

    Suppression or repression? The panoptic state is a pressure cooker strategy. Suppression, the self induced pathology leading to neurosis, is imposed by the artificial social medium of panopticsm.
    Individually it can be labeled as suppression, however on a societal scale it is designed, therefore the result is repression rather than suppression.

    The majority of people are gullible and week minded. Their minds are like cushions, keeping the impression of the last ass to sit on them. It should be grasped that in a high tech scientific dictatorship, ‘culture’ is simply the scum grown in a petri dish – all aspects of life are manipulated, thus the pandemic of normalcy bias, and it’s “Grand Coincidence Theory”. Alas, modern culture is no less based in superstition than any other known to cultural anthropology. There are mind numbing taboos, and voodoo-logic to vast extents. So it turns out that the problems of cognizance aren’t based so much in ignorance, as much as in knowing so much that simply isn’t so.

    Communication amongst ourselves is a difficult thing to accomplish. This is no mistake of happenstance either. The purposeful creation of a virtual ‘Tower of Babel’ is by high design. The compartmentalization of ‘specialists’ and specialized lexicon creates a technological cast system, each speaking their own languages. In such a social medium, few are entirely conscious. Most are, in practical terms unconscious {TVZomibies – the “Sheeple” etc.}, and those who are conscious must live somewhat offset from this society to remain in psychological balance. In other words it is an emotionally painful experience, one that many times leads to a world of loneliness, and ever vigilant caution.

    Allegorically it could be said that those who are conscious are in an living an ongoing episode of ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’. If the zombies really get that you are fully human, there can indeed be great danger. It is therefore true that at times this lack of any real ability to communicate can be a blessing. If they really figure out who you are you may end up lobotomized in some fashion if they get their hands on you.
    __________________

    And for Onebornfree:

    Finally “There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.” ~ Ayn Rand

    I don’t like her…but I understand what she means in this quote. She might have been a psycho but she wasn’t stupid.

    Speculate but don’t expectorate your brains…

    “I’m in with the In-Crowd I know what the On-Crowd knows
    I’m in with the In-Crowd I go where the On-Crowd goes”

    You might consider why you feel compelled to go to such “fashionably weird” ideas in the non-conformist suit.

    Are you trying too hard to prove you have an open mind? Is the appearance of that most important so you can be part of a “special crowd” with the “inside secret”?

    That is a futile game, it never works out but to become dogmatic with the rituals and rules of your “special secret”. If you really understood the source for intuition, you would understand that it is derived from your actual knowledge base. Therefore you should use it as a guide in seeking further knowledge to back it up – or if it checks out wrong, remember the distinct feeling of intuition and that you may have presumed beyond the idea being merely a lead – not the full knowledge in certainty of what that intuition tells you.

    I’m not trying to tear you apart Onebornfree, I am trying to show you something of how to put yourself back together, after you are willing to tear yourself apart for some introspection.

    And yes I do this myself as well, I try to understand myself deeper every day.

    ww

  108. Even Better Reasons To Conclude That the Photo at the Top of This Page is Most Likely A Fake!

    My two preceding posts tried to point out that given the average 9/11 researchers life experience of lies told to them by the government, and specifically with regard to lies the government has told and continues to tell about the events of 9/11; and assuming that experience has been mostly negative [i.e. 99+%] , surely it makes logical, common sense at some point for that average 9/11 researcher to completely abandon any pretense of attempted scientific impartial objectivity as the “lens” through which he/she attempts to further analyze the events/evidence of 9/11, and instead that they purposely move on to employ a new, fresh viewing “lens” through which all alleged 9/11 events and evidence are to be routinely scrutinized; that viewing “lens” being similar in pre-bias to the standard legal truth-seeking procedure usually called “false in one false in all” .[Or possibly called "a higher standard of truth"].

    However, there is actually an even better reason to assume such a “ridiculous” and “absurd” position [ or viewing "lens"], one that completely negates the individual researchers personal life experience with government lies, or its specific lies concerning the events of 9/11.

    In fact, this better reason makes the researchers personal life experience of the lie telling capability of the government and its employees completely irrelevant, regardless of whether that personal experience has been positive or negative to date .

    That better reason is the procedural requirements [mostly specifically laid out in the Bill of Rights] that must be followed to the letter by the court for the admission of any/all evidence against a defendant that the government attempts to have introduced in its prosecutions of defendants in federal criminal courts.

    To try to illustrate, imagine that the US government sought to have this photo admitted in court as truthful evidence in its criminal prosecution of certain individuals/ groups for responsibility for the events of 9/11:

    The photo at the top of this page was allegedly taken by a US government representative [ U.S. Navy Chief Photographer's Mate Eric J. Tilford], and to date, this photo has been used to reinforce/ bolster the governments story in the general public “eye”, via the media, but not in court.

    However it might also conceivably be used in a criminal court case by the government as evidence it might [try to] introduce to enable its criminal prosecution of certain individuals/ groups for the events of 9/11. [Yes, I know, a real, bona-fide criminal trial is highly unlikely- any "trial" would be rigged from start to finish , as the McVeigh trial surely was, but bear with me and fantasize a little :-) ]

    Before being finally admissible in our fantasy criminal court as genuine evidence that supported the governments case, both the photo and its alleged author would need to be subjected to a rigorous cross examination [and possible re-cross] by a competent attorney for the defense.
    , and would also need to fulfill specific evidentiary submission requirements of the Bill of Rights, before a jury even got to see it and judge it and its author as being truthful, or not.

    Is He Real?

    For example, the defense attorney would try to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged author of the photo [U.S. Navy Chief Photographer's Mate Eric J. Tilford.] was in fact a real, living person, or perhaps a fraud. That person [if found] would have to appear in court, in the flesh.

    Life History, Service Record, Acquaintances?

    Other people who claimed to know him would also be called to testify for him/about him to try and establish character [e.g. trustworthy or untrustworthy]. His entire life history [including military record] would be open to close review/ investigation by the defense.

    Flight Logs?

    The defense would probably ask for flight logs etc. to establish details of the alleged flight during which the alleged photo was taken,[ if they even exist].

    Camera, Lens Type, Time Of Day ,Flight Purpose , Other Sequential Images?

    This witness for the prosecution [assuming they exist] might be asked specifics as to type of camera used, lens type, time of day taken, purpose of flight, duration of flight, other flight personnel involved, and to produce all other sequential images purportedly taken on the same flight.

    Other Details? :

    There are probably many other details [for example , chain of custody, photographic experience of alleged author] that I am forgetting to mention that might also be legitimately asked of the both the photo and its alleged creator, by a competent defense attorney who was dubious of the photo’s authenticity, or of the alleged photographers existence, or both, and that would probably need to be answered satisfactorily before the photo and its alleged author might ultimately be court accepted [by the jury] as being in any way genuine. Photographic and video forgery experts might even be called to testify for the defense.

    At the Present Time ,What We Do Not Know[ With no Trial]:

    At the present time we have _NONE_ of those important details:

    1] we know nothing about the alleged photographer and their life history, or if they even really exist [photos and bios on the internet or in newspapers prove _nothing_, by the way] , and yet still, most of us continue to blithely assume, despite a constant stream of lies put out by the government concerning our day to day lives, plus a constant stream of government lies specifically concerning the events of 9/11, that the photo and its author must somehow be “real” and “genuine”, just because it mostly “looks right” to the uncritical eye, and because it somehow conveniently reinforces what some of us think they “already know” about the events of 9/11.

    2] We know nothing about the circumstances under which this photo was taken, other than what is conveniently presented to us on the internet or in print media.

    3] We know nothing about the type of equipment used to record this image, other than what we have already been conveniently told on the internet or in print media

    Yet despite all of those big important “don’t knows”, nearly everyone involved in 9/11 research routinely makes assumptions in favor of the truthfulness of this particular piece of government evidence and others like it, despite [or perhaps because of?] the lack of any criminal proceedings* that might be far more able to dig up the truth about the alleged photo, and about its alleged author, than we ever could do at this stage.

    Bottom line:

    that better reason I mentioned in the title for doubting the authenticity of the photo in question [i.e. better than an individual 9/11 researchers personal negative experience of the government addressed in prior posts] , is simply this: in any regular , “run of the mill” ordinary criminal court proceeding in the US , that very same photo and its author would _never_ be initially assumed to be truthful – practically the whole intent of the Bill of Rights was to ensure a permanent, unassailable federal criminal court system “atmosphere” where the complete opposite was to be automatically assumed both pre-trial and throughout its duration; that is: that the government would/will always lie and produce false evidence and witnesses to prosecute its cases [mainly because it has very powerful resources], and therefor all of its proposed evidence must be routinely subjected to a far “higher standard of truth”.

    And yet what do we mostly see with regard to 9/11?

    Researcher after researcher making naive ‘its the truth” assumptions about any/all 9/11″evidence” and witnesses, assumptions that are never ever routinely made in any “boilerplate” “run of the mill” criminal court proceeding in the US where the government is prosecuting.

    Good luck with that particular research “methodology”. :-)

    Regards, onebornfree.

    * [Assuming, of course, a real trial run to common law principles and Bill of Rights provisions for all evidence submissions, which was not being overseen/run by a "bent" federal judge, as was the case in the OKC/ McVeigh trial for example, and many in others before that, going all the way back at least to the Amistad case.]

    [p.s. specific shadow problems not addressed by Mr Shack to be addressed in another post]

    • Onebornfree,

      You have difficulty in sustaining the reasonableness of your arguments. You will blend a reasonable proposition and then claim that this is in some way applicable as, more than simply a rule of thumb, but turn it into dogmatic absolutism, which is a trait of fanaticism.

      Frankly this blather is growing quite tiresome. The issue now is the production of the further “analysis” as per the “improper” shadows that are alleged to be present in this photograph.

      Until this is produced your theories on what is and is not ‘reasonable’ is little more than hot flatulence.

      Let’s see your guru’s exposition and get on with it.

      ww

  109. Maybe next week…next month…huh Onebornfree?

    Meanwhile back in Toontown [pg. 10]:

    “Same kind of smoke and identical shadows: were these pictures taken at the same time?”
    ~nonhocapito, Administrator’s ‘comparison montage’.

    Hardly identical shadows, even the cranes are in different positions in these shots, as well as the shadows. Only the shot; top-right ,was taken from a great height {satellite}, this is why the angular discrepancy is missing as shown in the others.

    The others are from aircraft – seemingly within about a half hour or so between shots.

    ww

  110. Onebornfree,

    It is so that there are no chains of custody in the public realm for ANYTHING concerning 9/11. That is simply the state of the national security state. Unfortunate but that is what we have to deal with.
    So we deal with it – the vast amount of information dug up by the Truth community is done in spite of the official entrenchment.

    Now I find it odd, that not one single 9/11 image has gotten out in it’s original Adobe format. Not one.

    And yet the image put up on the White House web site managed to F-up and put the Adobe format fraudulent birth certificate on the net themselves. The powers that be are that sloppy.

    Still not a single known incident of a 9/11 photocomp with the hidden Adobe layers in ten years.

    — TEN YEARS!

    And yet still in every single image “analyzed” on September Clues, not one has been successfully proven to be anything other than a real photograph. To be sure there are a couple of things that to me are obvious ‘design’ pieces built for icons for web banners or video iconographs. But these are blatant and obviously not meant to trick anyone into thinking they are real.

    The serious stuff, showing the events and aftermath is however, real photography in every instance I have looked at.

    And it is here that we should apply your rule of “false in one false in all”.

    And I want to protest one more time for this long delay between your promise of a presentation from Mr. Pixel-Magic and the dead air continuing.

    ww

  111. As the clock goes ‘tic tic tic’, and the faucet goes ‘drip drip drip’, I find myself left to my own ruminations…

    And it occurred to me what is happening here:

    What Shack has done here is recognized that 9/11 is a ripe new myth with many avenues yet as a frontier. By dawning the mask of the perpetrators and thinking in their ritual robes, he came up with a grand mythological construct that had all the elements to answer every question in a single vision.

    The ritual activities designed to achieve the inner secrets of this new grand and sweeping mythology are simple and can be executed in the comfort of ones home or office; all one needs is a personal computer and internet connection. If one wishes to join the priesthood, one might invest in some graphics programs, and a Wacom tablet.

    Once one becomes an initiate in this new mythic cult, all questions within the 9/11 milieu are answered completely to utter emotional satisfaction.
    Encountering these new initiates is an experience much like meeting any evangelical true believer: “One Way” to heaven – truth – enlightenment, and they own it as a gift that MUST be shared with the unwashed masses.

    In psychological terms, all the aspects of a voodoo style ritual are present at September Clues forum. All the ones I have previously noted, plus one of the most important of all, the enforcement of strict adherence to the dogma and ritual of the the great prophet Saint Shack.

    Whether this great prophet understands or can even guess at his own psychological drives in this situation is doubtful, for he must first and foremost be himself a true believer before convincing any other.

    To merely expose Shack as a hack in his technological grasp of the tools of his ritual can never be enough to persuade one of his true believer followers, they have gone through the emotional branding of this ritual process. It has now become a psychological question, not one of facts and reason.

    This is no different from the situation the larger population faces with their being enchanted by the mainstream 9/11 myth. Only when some experience strong enough to break the spell set through the trauma will they be willing to look at things anew through the eyes of reason.

    For the dupes of Shacks new mythology, theirs is more complex, for they have willfully entered and enthusiastically partaken in these mystical rituals as active participants.

    For further study see:

    Under the heading of: Myth, symbols, and ritual:

    Joseph Campbell, Victor Turner, Erving Goffman, Lewis Henry Morgan, Clifford Geertz, James George Frazer

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      I fully understand what you are writing about and sheepishly agree.

      Before Mr. Shack, Mr. Goldberg, and Mr. OneBornFree got engaged here, I was the resident champion of no-planes and September Clues… BUT WITH THIS IMPORTANT DISTINCTION: I would promote nuggets that I thought were truth.

      DISCLAIMER: Any wholesale advertising of the complete September Clues and its forums that I may have performed was intended to get readers to think outside the box, to objectively review the material on their own, to come to their own conclusions, and to mine, re-fine, and re-use nuggets of truth discovered (if applicable). My endorsement of SC and the clues forum has never been 100%, if for no other reason than hedging my bets from collected comments may by many others [some with axe-grinding reputations parallel to Mr. Shack's] that the above may be disinformation.

      Thus, before the no-planes and Shack rabbit holes have their entrances beamed closed by directed energy weapons powered by nuclear reactors, let us evaluate various nuggets contained therein for truth or disinformation.

      To merely expose Shack as a hack in his technological grasp of the tools of his ritual can never be enough to persuade one of his true believer followers, they have gone through the emotional branding of this ritual process. It has now become a psychological question, not one of facts and reason.

      Chops for exposing his technological grasp of the tools, but you can’t deny these true believer followers’ ability to shoot themselves, their cause, and nuggets of both truth and disinformation in the foot in the shoddy and obtuse manner in which they defend it. “Found instances of A in a set: some solid, some shaky. Thus all in the set must be solidly A. Fall in One, False in All.” [A = image manipulation]

      It makes this true believer follower cough up some of the injested Kool-Aid through his nose.

      • Dear Mr. el Once,

        Thanks for responding here…I was beginning to wonder if the universe had rolled up like a scroll, and I was the last witness, like St. John or something…Lol

        What surprises me about such things is seeing how far some of these golems can walk on their feet of clay.

        ww

    • Dear Willy Whitten (aka “Hybridrogue”)

      It seems that you have chosen Craig McKee’s blog to spend untold hours of your time to attack my research (as expounded at Septemberclues.info and further developed at Cluesforum.info – ever since 2007). Time permitting – as the fair and open-minded person that I am – I try to read/catch up with the various naysayers challenging my work, such as yourself.

      However, your impatient, almost petulant demands for answers (going “tic-tic-tic”) to your many questions frankly puzzle me. Honestly now, Mr. Hybridrogue: do you really think anyone owes you prompt responses – on the strength of the pseudo-intellectual drivel you are relentlessly typing away on this blog? It naturally raises one core question: Have you personally produced a body of 9/11 research of your own – so that we can confront your own findings with ours? If so, please provide us with a link to it. Thanks!

  112. Dear Simon Shack (aka “septemberclues”)

    You ask:

    “do you really think anyone owes you prompt responses”

    Given the matter at hand, I should think that you would recognize that you owe it to yourself to come up with the goods that your lackey has advertised {prematurely it seems}, were to be the next coming attraction.

    Your other questions are irrelevant until you yourself can confront your own findings in light of the rebuttal put to them. Why is it you keep trying to draw us away from the work you claim to be so proud and sure of?

    I am sure that if Mr.McKee feels that I am abusing his blog, he will make that point directly to me.

    You know how it is Shack, the “heat” – the “kitchen” etc…if you can’t bake your pie, I will understand.

    ww

  113. Another point Mr. Shack,

    It is glaringly obvious why a discussion such as this is taking place somewhere other than your own blog.

    Is it not?

    You wouldn’t even let Mr. el Once join in on your reindeer games, although he was {too weakly} supportive of some of your ideas. If you try to assert here now, that I would have been tolerated beyond my very first comment at Sept.Clues, anyone reading this exchange will see that as an outright lie.

    Quit trying to game us here Mr. Shack, put your cards on the table or fold.

    At the beginning of this thread you were trying to get me involved in looking closely at your work, to draw me into some commentary on it. I didn’t want to, I avoided it for some time as the dates will show in the documentation here on this page. Now that I have put in these “countless hours” as you say, addressing your so-called “analysis”, you pretend that you are being unduly “attacked”, and overwhelmed with “pseudo-intellectual drivel”.

    If it is “pseudo-intellectual drivel”, Mr. Shack, prove it. Your whining that it is drivel is in no way a substantial argument countering anything I have said here.

    ww

  114. Honestly I am tired of this and want to get past it. I just think it’s a shame when people get hoodwinked into entering a hall of mirrors thinking it is representative of reality.

    ww

  115. “To this day, I have not come across any knowledgeable criticism (or, as popularly called,”debunking”) of my work. I am tranquilly awaiting for a serious, well-documented critique to commence. It still hasn’t – but when it starts – I will be happy to tackle every single well-formulated challenge to my longstanding research.”~Simon Shack – February 2, 2012 at 6:10 pm

    Mr. Shack, it is now March 27, very close to two months since you made the comment [boast] above.

    So far your only response to “every single well-formulated challenge to..[your]..longstanding research,” has been wholesale dismissal and hand-waving; characterizing such challenges as,
    “attacks” and “pseudo-intellectual drivel”.

    Your “tranquility” is pretense, just as your “research” and “analysis” is pretense. You have made it blatantly obvious that you cannot formulate even the beginning of a defense of your “work”, other than the pretense that your hand waving dismissals are in anyway adequate.

    For myself, I can only conclude from all of this that you sir, Mr. Simon Shack, are a charlatan and a pretender who has staged an elaborate internet hoax concerning a critical issue of our times – that being the 9/11 PSYOP.

    ~Willy Whitten

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      Please don’t let this posting interfer with the fun you are having with Mr. Shack. I, too, find the differences between analysis posed by Mr. Shack here and the maker of September Clues to be curious, as well.

      Mr. Shack and September Clues was not the first entity to propose no-planes (at the WTC on 9/11). From what I’ve gathered, those who first proposed it were ruthlessly marginalized, sometimes with their own cooperating hand. Be that as it may, the relatively polished effort of September Clues stepped in to wrap it all together, take ownership, and then add a few more twists. SimVictims is one such twist, one that I can buy but not in the quantities that the Clues Forum and Let’s Roll want to sell it at. The alleged collapse hoax and the “False in one, false in all” analysis add some more revolutions to the twist.

      My purpose for writing isn’t to belabor those points, but to re-focus on a core element of no-planes. Yes, explanations of how pixel manipulation was carried out is interesting. Here is a Bill Lear affadavit that adds details from another research direction regarding why no-planes is still on my table and within my beliefs cabinet.

      http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/12_Global/120323.Bill.Lear.affadavit.pdf

      In fairness, those with pilots credentials posit that the planes might have been special military planes, that were stronger, faster, and could survive the alleged operating conditions (540 mph at 800 feet in altitude.) Whether they were military planes or pixel planes on the telly, it pours cold water on a very large house of cards built around alleged hijackers and the legacy they left behind.

      You mentioned in other postings how flying a plane into the structures was the Occam Razor simplest solution over manipulating the imagery (to include fake pixels of planes.) To get the this-could-have-been-you-on-this-plane shock-and-awe, yes, real planes would have sufficed. I agree.

      But that shock-and-awe wasn’t the entire purpose of the planes. They needed sufficient damage to the WTC towers that would make “believable” their annihilation, as well as other key buildings in the complex like WTC-4 (holding Gold) and WTC-7 (holding SEC records). To this end, real planes would not cut it. Real planes present too many risks: Could they be hijacked? Could they fly their course un-intercepted? Could they be controlled and accurately targeted? Would they result in sufficient damage?

      What are the risks of pixel manipulation in comparison? Maybe that the raw footage would be leaked.

      [In one case, raw footage was leaked. A helicopter shot that doesn't show anything, and neither the pilot nor reported noticed anything until the tower exploded. Except that this shot was manipulated into three other versions: one showing an orb; one masking out the background and showing a plane flying some other direction; one showing a fuzzy pixel plane where the orb was. The funny part was that the orb was purposely taken up by a British crew and foisted on us as UFO's or super-secret flying technology based on UFO designs.]

      Thus, maybe pixel manipulation isn’t so risky. Media offers great help in messaging. Label and libel this as kooky disinformation, get a Clues Crew to own it and shoot it in the foot regularly (e.g., by taking this to the extremes in its “false in one, false in all” dogma, over-extending themselves with vicSim, hollow towers, and fake collapse & debris footage.) Business as usual. Everything you see and hear is under control. Nothing to see here folks. Move along now.

  116. Hi Señor El Once,

    I will go to the PDF you offered in a moment.

    First I wanted to give you a bit of my take on the ‘Real Planes’ scenario, and some points you surround that with.

    First off, the story of “hijackers” – I think this story has been cast into the bin of “Unproven” at least and from my point of view it is absurd on several levels. I won’t go into those as I am only attempting a general overview of how I see this case.

    I am of the opinion that the planes used were retrofitted by the military, repainted with the tow airlines logos and colors. I think they were set up to be taken over by a “Global Hawk” type of auto control, one that once set would not allow a human pilot to take back control of the plane.

    As per the damage real plane crashes would cause, I think that what we’ve seen is what it is, the impact damage – little but seemingly dramatic. And jet fuel fires…again dramatic, but in reality nothing that would cause any collapse, let alone a global one.

    As per the video talk by one of the *engineers, who gave a very good description of how the towers were constructed and what issues such tall standing buildings would have to overcome, he spoke of possible plane crashes, using the Boeing 707 as an example [which is actually more similar than many might imagine]. As far as the damage caused by such a crash he described it as “a pencil going through mosquito netting.” Which curiously enough is a good description of what it actually looked like in the 9/11 footage.

    *His name escapes me at the moment, but he died, I’m pretty sure in his office in one of the towers on 9/11.

    Now I am already familiar with Lear’s affidavit, but I will review it once more, and I will be back to comment.

    ww

  117. “While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.”~John Lear

    After reading the whole testimony of Lear just again now.

    I understand his arguments and they are strong – with these caveats:

    I would not assert a hijacker nor any other human is piloting these planes.

    As noted above, the planes can be flown faster, are structurally capable.
    Add to this that the speed at impact can be determined to be a “power up” charge at the target, it didn’t need to travel at such a speed for very long.

    I would also propose that special engines replacing the fans might have been the case. That is such fans as would be more applicable for flight in heavier atmosphere at this altitude.

    Again, my assumptions are based on re-fitted military Boeings flying by robotic control – not standard commercial planes.

    As far as the strike on the buildings, there is a lot of building engineering assumptions here by a pilot. It is also a fact that debris DID fall at the impact site…and the type one would {I would} expect, shreds and shards – large pieces are not going to be the result of such an impact.

    I am not claiming to be 100 percent correct, but I think there is legitimate controversy and I am on the side of real plane impacts.

    By the way, I addressed some of the issues that have been raised by others on this thread some time ago, and I am not going to repeat those again, but if your would review them, you will see more of the meat of the argument I am making.

    ww

  118. WTC construction.
    Towers’ Design Parameters Twin Towers’ Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th

    Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires …

    “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, … The building structure would still be there.”~John Skilling

    Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

    “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door — this intense grid — and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
    Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.”

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

    ww

  119. It may interest the forum, here is an email I just sent to Don Dahler concerning an email he wrote that was published on the CluesForum, and can be read in full on that sight:

    Hello Mr. Dahler,

    I read your letter to a fellow who had made a documentary video claiming ‘digital fakery’ and the theory that there were no plane crashes into the twin towers on 9/11.

    I commend you in your technical critique of these ideas. I personally have been in a long drawn out argument with defenders of this ‘theory’.

    I want to let you know that I agree with your technical observations, and had made some of the same points myself.
    However, you stepped beyond your technical hat with the following paragraph:

    “The attacks of 9/11 were conducted by a radicalized group of well-trained,
    devoted, albeit deluded individuals. Their journey to that moment in time
    has been thoroughly documented. The masterminds confessed and can be heard
    bragging on tape. But you and the other conspiracy theorists don’t
    believe any of that. You won’t believe anything I’ve said here. You
    won’t believe the empirical and well-reasoned item-by-item rebuttals to
    these ridiculous theories by independent scholars, journalists,
    investigators and publications which have access not only to worn-out video
    clips but the documents, forensic evidence and actual eyewitnesses
    themselves.. Because ultimately, you and the team of murderers who killed
    thousands of men, women, and children that day, many of whom, incidentally,
    were my neighbors, have one indisputable thing in common: you have tipped
    over the edge of reason into the world of superstition and illogic. They
    believed they were serving the cause of their God because some evil,
    hate-filled religious leader brainwashed them into thinking so. And you
    and others like you have latched onto this fetish and refuse to seriously
    consider anything other than your own religious beliefs that somehow a
    government which so consistently botches so many relatively simple
    endeavors, like making sense of a health care system or taxing its citizens
    in a fair and effective manner, could launch such an enormously, impossibly
    complex mission to dupe and murder its own people; a mission which would
    have to involve thousands of conspirators. None of whom has ever come
    forward.”

    There has been substantial discovery since the events of 9/11 that dispute the official story. It is no longer tenable to rational argument.

    I understand that it would cause great personal difficulties for a person in your particular position to take the “odd man out” posture and buck going along to get along. So I would not anticipate your having a vested interest in pursuing any of the deep questions raised about the official conspiracy theory. It is most likely that ‘debunking’ such considerations are part of your job description.

    I would have you know however, that successfully knocking down strawmen, such as the goofy ‘No-Planers’, is not in the same league as taking on the substantial arguments, now legion against the official dogma.

    Yours, Willy Whitten

  120. Yet More Reasons To Conclude That the Photo at the Top of This Page is Most Likely A Fake

    OK, so I’ve finally had the time to try to finish what I started here [real life sometimes gets in the way: that is, for those of us with real lives :-) ]

    So now, to the photo itself. The original reason I had doubted its authenticity was that I had “shadow issues”; that is, the shadows in the picture did not seem to be in places they should be , given the implied angle of the sun, [high and to the right corner],on a clear day, via the other , sharply defined building shadows present.

    Referring to either the picture at the top of this page, or to Mr Shack’s larger image in his updated post for March 21st, 2012, 9:28 am at the bottom of the page :
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489sid=1bda8f84a066dfc45de5aa7f779693f5&start=135
    , what had originally caught my attention was the two tall narrow buildings in the top left hand corner of the picture, the near sides of neither of which appear to be in full shade [as I believe they should be], for whatever reason.

    In Mr Shack’s adjusted exposure post directly above his March 21st, 2012, 9:28 am post in http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489sid=1bda8f84a066dfc45de5aa7f779693f5&start=135

    ,those two building do darken somewhat, but do not reach full blackness, as can be seen happens with other shadows elsewhere in the picture.

    Also, directly in front of those two buildings is a shorter building with a smaller white structure on its roof – the near side of this smaller structure is also inexplicably “too” white, although it too is darker in Mr Shack’s darkened exposure, for whatever reason.

    Possibly all three buildings therefor exhibit genuine faint shadows initially and are not the end result of image manipulation, I cannot say for certain, but their relative whiteness in the original exposure still “smells funny”, to myself, at least.

    White Building Between “A” and “B” :

    However, what about the building which appears approximately half way up the left hand side of the frame, and that in Mr Shack’s darkened exposure is the building directly between the ones he has labelled “A” and “B” in yellow?

    The near side of it is full white in both the original exposure on this blog and at “September Clues”.

    Not only that, but it hardly gets any darker when the “brightness/contrast” is filtered to darken the picture as demonstrated by Mr Shack in his other picture version, as do most of the other buildings.

    This seems more than a little strange to me, but again, as with the building shadows previously mentioned, perhaps inconclusive.

    Curved Shadows From Right-Angles?

    An even stranger shadow [not addressed by Mr Shack nor his forum members to date, for whatever reason], can be seen to be present near the bottom left of the picture, specifically, the shadow which puts the arm of the orange crane that is farthest to the left in the frame, mostly in shade, and is, as far as I can tell, supposed to be the shadow of the low, partially damaged building directly above it in the picture.

    For one thing, this shadow is way too long for a building that short [ comparatively speaking] , given the implied angle of the sun [fairly high] and in isolation this shadow implies a far lower sun angle ; and for another, the right hand edge of this particular shadow is inexplicably fully curved, almost exactly like the blacked-out, lower right hand quadrant of a circle, when the building itself producing the shadow has merely a vertical [right hand ] corner , right-angled with the roof line [i.e 90 deg.] to produce that mysteriously curved shadow!

    It’s Not a Shadow?

    And, if it is _not_ a shadow, but some sort of ground feature, then why does it put the arm of the crane directly in front of it in the shade?

    And, if its not a shadow, where _is_ the shadow on the ground from that side of the building- shouldn’t it be there on on the ground directly in front of it ? There is nothing else there however that looks even remotely like a shadow on the ground below that wall.

    Furthermore, what’s going on with the [relatively straight, but still inexplicably crooked] left-hand side of that particular buildings overlong, strangely curved shadow [if it is indeed a shadow] ? Beats me.

    Black Is Black?

    Another thing to consider: contrast the relative blackness [in the full exposure] of that same building’s wall and which allegedly produced this unusually curved shadow, with the extreme blackness of the two low buildings directly above it in the photo, or even with the super blackness of parts of the same low structure directly to the right and above that strange curved shadow.

    These extremely black “black holes” [as it were] appear to be photoshop or similar additions/overlays, at least to my eyes. [all of these ultra-black areas are just to left of center in the photo] .

    Why are these black areas near the center of the picture so much blacker than virtually every other part of the picture? Beats me.

    Smoke Issues- Flying Chevrons?

    As to whether or not smoke would reflect back sunlight and lighten the side of a building that should otherwise be in full shade – I have no idea if that is true or not- for me a far bigger issue is the presence of a completely unnatural , geometric smoke shape; that is, an almost perfect chevron shape[ i.e. > ] , to be seen in at least two apparently sequential photos.

    This > shape [ in the center of the picture in question] can be most clearly seen in the photos posted by super observant September Clues contributor “nohocapito” in his post dated March 19th, 2012, 1:03 am here:
    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=489sid=beb1c6686926f7667fb7141251f07a20&start=135 , and also by” icarusinbound ” March 19th, 2012, 1:30 am , in the very next post.

    Are we to believe that drifting smoke would:

    [1] in the first place, form such a geometric shape, and [2] hold that exact shape over a period of seconds, between sequential shots ?

    Furthermore, if exotic or nuclear weapons had been used [as some here might insist], would not the ground below the smoke still be emitting extreme heat?

    Wouldn’t that ground heat create upward eddies of hot air that would disperse smoke quickly and prevent it from forming near perfect chevron shapes that hold for seconds at a time?

    Of course, if the smoke is a fake overlay , then it will have such no problems from rising ground heat left in the aftermath of destruction via any type of proposed exotic weaponry! [In case of misunderstanding I have no idea what type of technique was used in the demolition, exotic or otherwise, although for what its worth, like Mr Shack, for reasons explained here :http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm , I presently lean towards a real life standard ground -up demolition- the exact opposite of what is seen in the [fake] network collapse video sequences. ]

    Regards, onebornfree.

    [ Summary to follow later].

    • Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

      You write:

      … [F]or what its worth, like Mr Shack, for reasons explained here http://heiwaco.tripod.com/tower.htm , I presently lean towards a real life standard ground-up demolition- the exact opposite of what is seen in the [fake] network collapse video sequences.

      Most of the reference physics on that page is valid. However, Mr. Shack is purposely skewing it, and you’ve swallowed his weak understanding of science and physics “hook, line, and sinker.”

      For the record, a building can be destroyed bottom-up, top-down, middle-up-&-down-at-same-time, or whatever suits your fancy (and lots of YouTube videos show this)… if you add energy and control when and how that energy is applied. Bottom-up is the preferred method in how it reduces the amount of extra energy applied and makes use of gravity, but it isn’t the only method.

      When your reference link argues against the top-down demolition, what it is really doing is proving why the govt’s explaination is wrong using Newton’s physics. Specifically, the govt said that once the collapse was initiated (by jet fuel and office fires weakening steel), then the top section under the force of gravity alone crushed the lower section totally and at a downward acceleration not far from free fall.

      Newton’s conservation of energy and momentum explain why this can’t be so. Energy from the top section’s downward acceleration supposedly pulverized the lower sections. But if so, then the top section’s downward acceleration should have slowed noticable from having spent its kinetic energy in pulverizing. This is exactly what it didn’t do. The govt’s version leaves the energy equations woefully unbalanced (if you stick with the assumption of gravity alone.)

      Mr. Shack wants you to believe that a top-down demolition isn’t possible, unless you fake it on the telly. The reason this is so ludicrous is that if they had the ability to fake the footage of the entire demolition from lots of different angles with many of them being aired almost immediately, they could have at least made their fake videos physics compliant, e.g., not getting pulverized at near free fall downward accelerations, slow it down.

      So why did it seem like the top section crushed the lower section totally and at a downward acceleration not far from free fall? Because they added energy. They didn’t just blow away structure underneath the falling top section so that its downward acceleration would be largely unhindered; they pulverized content, which is a massive energy sink. In fact, if you look closely, they pulverized the top section before the roof-line passed significantly the (alleged) “impact level”, so there was really no coherent “pile-driving” top section. This is yet another blatant error they could have fixed, if what was depicted on the telly wasn’t real.

      And in case you missed it in the discussion above, your “real life standard ground-up demolition” cannot explain the after-effects. Such “standard” mechanisms cannot account for under-rubble hot-spots burning without oxygen, nor can they account for the duration of hot-spots. Therefore, you better lean another direction with regards to what you speculate destroyed the WTC complex. In leaning elsewhere, maybe you’ll see why image manipulation happened (assuming it happened in the demolition and after-math).

      • Señor El Once says: “Mr. Shack wants you to believe that a top-down demolition isn’t possible, unless you fake it on the telly. The reason this is so ludicrous is that if they had the ability to fake the footage of the entire demolition from lots of different angles with many of them being aired almost immediately, they could have at least made their fake videos physics compliant, e.g., not getting pulverized at near free fall downward accelerations, slow it down.”

        The collapse footage is all fake- every last pixel of every minute of every one of them. Nothing regarding means of demolition can be gleaned from watching any of them.

        The reason for the high speed of collapse seen was purely psychological- to induce maximum “shock and awe” in the population and ensure that the call to war would not meet opposition.

        Making fake videos “physics compliant” [with slower collapses] would have reduced the psychological impact on the viewer.

        Practically the entire population had been prepped for the idiotic visuals via the Hollywood movie “Independence Day”:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRyoFgAhW4c , which showed the exact same, super fast, ridiculous [outside of via beams from space :-) ], top down destruction of a building, and even threw in a brief on-screen unveiling of the date “9/11″ for good measure.

        Señor El Once says: “And in case you missed it in the discussion above, your “real life standard ground-up demolition” cannot explain the after-effects. Such “standard” mechanisms cannot account for under-rubble hot-spots burning without oxygen, nor can they account for the duration of hot-spots. ”

        Prove there were hot spots. You cannot. Conjecture, or , in other words, pure hear say from none-cross examined “witnesses” .

        Regards, onebornfree

        P.S. I like how you completely avoided discussing the main issue of the post, that is, the dubious nature of the photo under examination- nice try , but no cigar.

      • Dear Mr. OneBornFree,

        First allow me to apologize for not having analyzed the picture on this article. Digital imagery manipulation is not my forte, so I had little to contribute on the subject except as an objective observer. Neither Mr. Shack nor you have made a convincing case for that image being manipulated, tainted, or faked.

        You write:

        The collapse footage is all fake- every last pixel of every minute of every one of them.

        Prove it.

        You can’t. Even Mr. Shack can’t. I put him and his crew up to the test, and he weasel-worded his way out of it (paraphrased) “Now Sr. El Once, you can’t really expect us to have worked through every piece of 9/11 imagery to conclusively prove it is faked. That is a monumental task.” In fact, the test I proposed to Mr. Shack was a tiny subset of all 9/11 imagery and more easily reviewed. Part 1 was just several images used by Dr. Wood; only two came close to having evidence of tainting. Mr. Shack banned me before I could conjole them into looking into her collected images of 9/11 vehicle damage.

        The damage to the official govt theory is already done when you prove even a subset of the 9/11 imagery as tainted. You don’t have to prove that the whole thing is fake. However, when you and Mr. Shack take the ludicrious position that “all is fake” without proof that “all is fake”, what you do is shoot holes in what evidence of tainting of a subset of 9/11 imagery that you can (almost) prove. Plus, such silly argumentation techniques sully your reputations for stupid reasons, like not being explicit enough in your language.

        Nothing regarding means of demolition can be gleaned from watching any of them.

        Aha! Your true agenda item! Take 9/11 imagery off the table so that it can’t be used to prove squat!

        I loved your hypothesis:

        The reason for the high speed of collapse seen was purely psychological- to induce maximum “shock and awe” in the population and ensure that the call to war would not meet opposition. Making fake videos “physics compliant” [with slower collapses] would have reduced the psychological impact on the viewer.

        According to you, the perps were more concerned about inducing maximum shock-and-awe by flagrantly defying the laws of physics in the videos they faked, and they were less concerned that such physics defying faked videos would be deemed reality (the goal of the faked imagery, right?), would highlight destructive methods well beyond the capabilities of dead patsy hijackers in planes, and would then implicate a wider circle of conspirators and insiders. Brilliant!

        I am still laughing. If I have misunderstood what you have said, then next time remove your wallet from hip pocket, because it may be muffling the apparatus through which you talk.

        Practically the entire population had been prepped for the idiotic visuals via the Hollywood movie “Independence Day”, which showed the exact same, super fast, ridiculous [outside of via beams from space :-) ], top down destruction of a building, and even threw in a brief on-screen unveiling of the date “9/11? for good measure.

        Yes, the population has been prepped for 9/11 via Hollywood. However, Hollywood at least tells (or shows) you that a UFO’s laser beam is responsible for the tippy-top-down super fast destruction of a building, so that it isn’t ridiculous.

        With 9/11, none of the towers was destroyed tippy-top-down. Destruction started at the alleged plane impact level and the top accordian’ed in on itself before any significant advancement into the lower tower structure. Gee, if I was Hollywood and involved with faking this, this is an error I would not have even incorporated into the simulations to get approval from my superiors. And if the audience is going to be told that gravity did it, then as Hollywood I would have showed in my simulations gravity doing it, which would have involved modeling properly elastic and inelastic collisions that would slow down the destruction to not be so super fast.

        So why weren’t these errors fixed in the faked imagery? Because the imagery wasn’t faked in terms of the essential reality of what it depicted. Remember, the demolitions from various angles were broadcast close to real-time live. The imagery has always depicted something close to the essential reality. If the hand of manipulation entered, it would have been to mask out any unsightly colorful flashes of bombs, lasers, or arcs.

        As for the hot-spots, the proof does not rely on imagery, although that is part of it. If there were no hot-spots, there would have been no need for govt reports that documented them, now would there?

        No need to respond to this posting. Instead, feel free to focus on responding to Mr. HybridRogue1 from March 30, 2012 at 1:56 p.m.

        And in doing so, know that your leash is getting shorter. Be reasonable and rational. Irrational and stupid games like your last posting (… or even most of your postings in this thread…) won’t be tolerated for much longer. You’ll suffer a fate worse than banishment: ignore.

    • From hybridrogue1 (March 30)

      Señor El Once,

      Here is his argument in his exact words taken from:

      http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2055659

      “…my observations focused on 2 conflicting timelines which different authorities released in relation to the supposed impact of “FLIGHT175″ on WTC2.

      - The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades reported a seismic spike at 9:02.54.

      - The official timeline (released by the media and the FAA) claims that “FLIGHT 175″ hit WTC2 at 9:03.11.

      There is a seemingly inexplicable 17-second discrepancy between these two timelines. Now, let’s assume the seismic Observatory’s timeline is the more credible one (as they recorded underground explosions of the WTC demolition job). This would mean that, for some reason, the official version had to lie by a margin of 17 seconds.”~Shack

      ww

  121. Anal Hurlant

    Hey waiter! I ordered a piece of devil’s food cake – you brought me a slice of fruitcake…I HATE FRUITCAKE!!

    Jeeeeze…and now it turns out the busboy has been pretending to be a waiter….and now, we find out he’s playing chef as well. WTF??

    “No structure or tower can be destroyed by gravity from above initiated by local structural failures up top caused, e.g. by a plane.”~Anders Björkman of Heiwaco Co. tripod

    In the “Truth Community” Björkman’s statement above is of the “no snit Sneerlock” category.

    The destruction of the towers has been front and center to the whole WCT issue from the very beginning – based on the fact that no steel framed high-rise could possibly ‘fall through itself’ in a gravitational collapse. It is further noted in all sane assessments of the visual evidence from the event that the buildings were exploded – yes top to bottom in an explosive demolition.

    So where does Björkman begin? With the obvious. What does he do with it? He spins backwards and leaps into utter lunacy. “No” he claims, ‘we do not see the buildings exploding from the top down’, because…because?? Again, the lunatic assertion that it was faked special effects footage. Why must this be? Because claims Björkman, a building ‘has to be demolished from the base upward’…and why is this so? Because ““No structure or tower can be destroyed by gravity from above…”

    Are you getting this Onebornfree? Can’t you see that this is utter nonsense?

    It’s like saying you can’t shoot someone with a gun that has no bullets. When the counter argument proves that the gun was loaded. Specifically, the counter argument to this Special FX bullshit you are promoting is NOT a ‘gravity driven collapse’.

    Björkman can prove by ‘spring dynamics’, by ‘conservation of energy’, by any law of physics he chooses that it is impossible for a structure to collapse through itself due to gravity. All of this has to be true. BUT, since the visual evidence proves the same thing, that it was not a gravity driven collapse, that the towers exploded…What is his excuse for dismissing the visual evidence?

    I’ll tell you what it is, Björkman is crazy as a shithouse rat.

    Yes there are extensions to that last sentence. Put that together on your own.

    ww

  122. Señor El Once,

    You advise Onebornfree:

    “In leaning elsewhere, maybe you’ll see why image manipulation happened (assuming it happened in the demolition and after-math).”

    In “leaning elsewhere”, we had also better get some actual proof that there has been any image manipulation – this first and foremost – and thus far there has been nothing but inept visual acuity blended with absurd allegation, on top of utter ignorance of the photographic medium, as per perspective and the nature of light.

    I grow more astonished each passing day that this conversation even needs to take place among sane adults. I see the whole subject as a high pressure gastric track release. It is as noxious as it is stupid.

    ww

  123. I wrote to Mr. OneBornFree regarding acknowledging the added energy as the cause for the top-down destruction as opposed to fake videos:

    Therefore, you better lean another direction with regards to what you speculate destroyed the WTC complex. In leaning elsewhere, maybe you’ll see why image manipulation happened (assuming it happened in the demolition and after-math).

    Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:

    In “leaning elsewhere”, we had also better get some actual proof that there has been any image manipulation – this first and foremost – and thus far there has been nothing but inept visual acuity blended with absurd allegation, on top of utter ignorance of the photographic medium, as per perspective and the nature of light.

    The above lacks some qualifiers and is overly broad. To my understanding, I have been convinced of some level of image manipulation in the imagery set for 9/11. The extent of my belief of such varies from “lots” for pixel images of planes flying to “little” for demolition and aftermath imagery. In the case of the latter and specifically as it applies to the image at the top of this article, I am forced to agree fully with your assessment.

    Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote across two different postings with my bolding:

    What is [Björkman's] excuse for dismissing the visual evidence? I’ll tell you what it is, Björkman is crazy as a shithouse rat.

    I grow more astonished each passing day that this conversation even needs to take place among sane adults.

    Sanity or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. It is all about agendas.

    If “Cass Sunstein”-style infiltration of Mr. McKee’s blog were a given and were to happen, what form would it take?

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fingers can point at me, too. I can only hope that my arguments are convincing in the minds of objective and rational thinkers. And if they are not, convincing counter argument can get me to change my mind and alter my hypotheses. This is but one tiny proof of my meager assertion that I am what I say I am: a duped useful idiot and not an Q-group agent. Another tiny proof is that I don’t drink the entire jug of Kool-Aid from sources on no-planes and nuclear DEW. I do not champion the entire party line, but pick and choose what I consider to be nuggets of truth. I encourage others to validate my hypotheses and to convince me of my errors, so that I’m not such an outlier in my duped beliefs. If I were a Q-groupie and paid-to-post … * ca-ching, ca-ching * PAYDAY!!! You can bet I’d ramp up my postings here, expand the internet forums where I participate, and wouldn’t give an inch on the agendas I’m paid to promote.

    To show how maluable I am to other ideas, the following video got me going down a nano-thermite rabbit hole:

    The video is making connections between 9/11 govt players and technology. One such player was L. Paul Bremer who was later appointed as ambassador to Iraq and oversaw that countries occupation. Mr. Bremer was on Advisory Board of Komatsu Corporation during the period when Kabushiki Kaisha Komatsu Seisakusho was issued (July 2, 1996) Patent 5532449 “Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete”.

    The present invention relates to an improvement in method and apparatus for demolishing concrete structures. In a specific aspect, the invention relates to method and apparatus for melting concrete. … It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.

    I went and reviewed plasma arc welding as background:

    Plasma arc welding is similar to gas tungsten arc welding. The electric arc is formed between an electrode and the workpiece. By positioning the electrode within the body of the torch, the plasma arc can be separated from the shielding gas envelope. The plasma is then forced through a fine-bore copper nozzle which constricts the arc and the plasma exits the orifice at high velocities (approaching the speed of sound) and a temperature approaching 20,000 °C.

    Also:

    Plasma arc treatment directs an electric current through a low-pressure gas stream that creates a thermal plasma field. Plasma arc fields can reach 5000 to 15000°C.

    In the Komatsu patent, a plasma arc is generated from a plasma torch, but with this difference. The supply gas for the plasma torch is mixed with thermite power and is jetted into the resulting plasma arc environment. The heat of the generated plasma arc causes the thermite powder to ignite, inducing a thermite reaction. When directed at the surface of the concrete structure, the thermite reaction heat and the plasma arc heat synergize each other to efficiently melt the concrete surface. The patent details a method of controlling the rate of supply of the thermite power to the plasma arc, thereby controlling the heat generated by the thermite reaction.

    From Kevin Ryan, another L. Paul Bremer connection is with Chartek (now International Paint) who is the maker of InterChar, a fireproofing primer. Chartek work with NASA
    http://www.international-pc.com/pc/pds/963to_uk.pdf
    http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/ps_3.html

    I do not as of yet speculate that this thermite plasma arc was the primary destructive mechanism on the towers on 9/11. It would require a hefty source of electricity for the electrical arcs — oooo, maybe my milli-nuclear reactors !!! –, plus containers for the gas and powder thermite whose amounts would not be trivial. It seems to me that the arc would be visible, and could be responsible for the weird color filter that some networks applied to their footage to manipulate it.

    This is all still a hypothesis is progress.

    At this point, the only conclusion that readers should make is… “There he goes again, getting himself positioned to be duped by yet another scheme.” Alas, at least my mind is still open to consider that which I do not know and to try to make sense of it.

    Men and women of the [nineteenth] century, are you called to voice a higher order of Science? Then obey this call. Go, if you must, to the dungeon or the scaffold, but take not back the words of Truth. How many are there ready to suffer for a righteous cause, to stand a long siege, take the front rank, face the foe, and be in the battle every day?
    ~Mary Baker Eddy

    • Dear Señor El Once,

      There are several PDFs from Kevin Ryan that go into the connections of a whole fleet of individuals in an interlocking directive having to do with the WTC. He notes that many of the scientists involved with the NIST studies and reports were involved with the development of the new gel-sol nanothermates at various government labs throughout the nation.
      I read the connections of Bremmer in those PDFs as well.

      As far as the distinction between “sanity and agendas”…well this one has to do with intent, which must be parsed for each commentator that we might encounter on these blogs. As there is of course a wide variety of intellectual aptitudes within the human race, this is a hard call.

      If I were to make that call between someone like Mr. Shack, and say, Onebornfree, I would note some wide differences in both style and comprehension between the two. I see Onebornfree as a scattered thinker, and more likely a simple dupe. Whereas Mr. Shack has more of the modus operendi of either a huckster or possibly an agent of the Sunstein school. Still all we know of either is their web presence.

      You may take me as dogmatic, especially in my views on the question of wholesale image manipulation. It is true that I haven’t looked at every single page of Shack’s Sept.Clues forums. He may have lucked out somewhere and found something that is actually a manipulated image for all I know – but as far as his overall track record, combined with his dogmatic theory of ALL 9/11 images being faked, I see the whole issue as a red herring meant to distract from the real issues, and especially to rape the knowledge gained by what is by far the Best Evidence, for most of the WTC case.

      As far as what is an open mind, and what is a gullible mind, we may still have our differences. But I am beginning to get a better understanding of you the longer the conversation goes on. I really do not approach these forums with the intent to belligerence. All I am looking for is well reasoned argumentation. Yours is generally well reasoned, even if I disagree with some of your conclusions, and I appreciate the opportunity to defend my points of view with a capable opponent, it makes me think things through more completely, and understand the weak points, or lack of clarity I may have used to make my points.

      That said, I still do think that the issue of digital image fakery is by and large, simply bullshit.
      You might read the first half of Don Dahler’s letter that was published at SeptClues, as he points out some very prescient points about the video technologies in use in 2001. Sorry I don’t recall the page on Shack’s site that has this. Also I will say that I do consider Dahler as one of the robotic tools of the state media. I take good info where I find it, his technological information makes reasonable sense, and for the most part I accept his input on those points.
      You will note that I challenged him in the email I posted here, that I sent to him. Which he hasn’t answered, and I doubt that he ever will.

      This has been a long and exhaustive thread. I would like to see the issue of No-Planes, and Digital Fakery put behind me. I doubt that will happen. But I am certainly sick of it, and don’t see anyway of getting through to the true believers. So as Mary Baker Eddy advises, I may be back yet another day, to stand to what I see as faulty reason and over the top bullshit.

      ww

  124. onebornfree says on March 30, 2012 at 12:59 pm:

    “The collapse footage is all fake- every last pixel of every minute of every one of them. Nothing regarding means of demolition can be gleaned from watching any of them.”

    So Onebornchump, just where did you learn the expertise in photo analysis to come to this sweeping conclusion? What software programs and attendant equipment for operating such programs do you have?

    How long have you been operating such systems?

    I submit that you have nothing at all; that you simply visit September Clues forum and read the batshit crazy nonsense there and look at pictures proving squat, and then bounce over here to feed this forum your lunatic ravings.

    So far, you haven’t even decided just what it is about the photo at the top of the page which is wrong. Is it the shadows? The smoke? The textures? What?

    Do you know what ludicrous means? What is it that drives you in this silly game you are playing?

    ww

  125. From a September Clueless Forum of 2010:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2055659

    “- The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades reported a seismic spike at 9:02.54.

    - The official timeline (released by the media and the FAA) claims that “FLIGHT 175″ hit WTC2 at 9:03.11.

    “There is a seemingly inexplicable 17-second discrepancy between these two timelines. Now, let’s assume the seismic Observatory’s timeline is the more credible one (as they recorded underground explosions of the WTC demolition job). This would mean that, for some reason, the official version had to lie by a margin of 17 seconds.” ~Simon Shacht July 27th, 2010, 9:46 pm
    THE 17 SECONDS ENIGMA

    This whole argument by the prophet of magic pixies is bunk.

    The plane crashing into the building would not have caused any seismic signal at all. The linkage to the ground is buffered by countless physical factors – the vibrations would have shuttered down the structure with an ever weakening and dissipating signal.

    >>BTW Señor El Once, this is the page with Don Dahler’s email that I have discussed.

    ww

    • Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

      You didn’t read Mr. Shack’s quotation closely enough. You are correct in saying:

      The plane crashing into the building would not have caused any seismic signal at all. The linkage to the ground is buffered by countless physical factors – the vibrations would have shuttered down the structure with an ever weakening and dissipating signal.

      Mr. Shack wasn’t saying that the (alleged) plane is responsible for the seismic spike. He is saying that underground explosions are responsible for this.

      Let’s not forget Willy Rodriquez and others from the basement who reported a bomb going off. Let us not forget the videos of the firemen arriving in the lobby and seeing marble displaced from the walls and lots of other evidence of destructive energies that could not have been from an (alleged) airplane impact and fireball some 80 or more stories above the lobby. Such bombs to prepare the basement levels to contain debris would account for a seismic spike.

      The discrepancy is the reported spike (9:02.54) and the (alleged) WTC-2 plane impact (9:03.11) is most curious and should not be dismissed too fast. The 17 seconds difference — or delay — is significant, and dovetails nicely with several anomalies featured in September Clues.

      You wrote:

      This whole argument by the prophet of magic pixies is bunk.

      All disinformation has to be based on a solid foundation of truth. I believe the 17 second enigma and Mr. Shack’s analysis is one such nugget of truth. The disinformation comes in when he and his minions erroneously extrapolate one instance of faking to be “all was faked” and “don’t even look at the 9/11 imagery anymore to postulate what might have been the cause, because it is unreliable and faked.”

  126. “Nothing regarding means of demolition can be gleaned from watching any of them.”~Onebraingone

    “Aha! Your true agenda item! Take 9/11 imagery off the table so that it can’t be used to prove squat!”~Señor El Once

    Yes, It is my opinion that this is indeed the true agenda of the whole September Clueless show.

    I have spent some more time on the Shack’n’jive site today, visiting the “simvic” material. This commentary is all from a group of heartless ghouls, it is disgusting and pathological garbage.

    The only PSYOP exposed on that site is their own…and “I don’t think it’s funny no more”…

    Enough of the stupid gopher, where’s that stinking skunk? I know you are checking in on this forum Shack, you got anything but the same bla bla blather you have dumped here before?

    ww

  127. Consider William Rodriguez’s testimony.

    He says he was in his office in one of the sublevels when he felt and heard what seemed like an explosion from below. He was stunned for a few seconds, and just before he was going to put his impressions into words, he heard a smack from high above. That sequence of time, 17 seconds, could be – most likely is the time between the subbasement explosion and the plane crash.

    And don’t forget how he characterizes the sound of the high above noise, as a ‘bang or a smacking sound’ {my memory as to how he put it}.

    The Palisades reported a seismic spike at 9:02.54, would be the basement bomb…and there would be no corresponding seismic spike for the airplane strike 17 seconds later.

    And this question has been addressed on many forums for many years already – and by actual scientists and critical thinkers. One needn’t go to Toonville for such “nuggets”.

    ww

  128. WELL?

    It seems to me this is like Florida in 2000 – Hanging Chads….

    By that I mean, there is no resolution, no summation.

    I would perhaps propose, that like a chess match, or a boxing match, when the opponent is a no show the game goes to the team or player that does.

    I think I have made a very strong case that September Clues is an elaborate hoax, that the main purpose is to take the best evidence off the table. I think that the lack of response by the chief instigator of this hoax is most telling.

    Unless there is something more than hand waving the critiques I have offered here, I will offer my simple summation:

    September Clues is a scam.

    ~Willy Whitten

  129. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

    You wrote:

    I think I have made a very strong case that September Clues is an elaborate hoax, that the main purpose is to take the best evidence off the table.

    Unless there is something more than hand waving the critiques I have offered here, I will offer my simple summation: September Clues is a scam.

    A hoax and a scam September Clues might very well be, but to what degree?

    What nuggets of truth do you purposely bury in your efforts to get all of September Clues and imagery manipulation taken off the table from others objectively reviewing it and making their own conclusions?

    From my perspective, Mr. HybridRogue1, you have been deploying the same techniques as Mr. Shack and company but with a different agenda. Mr. Shack dubiously argues that if some media manipulation exists, then all must be fake & nothing was real. However, you have dubiously argued that if Mr. Shack had certain flaws in fakery analysis of newer material, then all of Mr. Shacks prior efforts (or what is credited to him) must also be flawed: don’t look there anymore.

    The no-planes argument did not originate with September Clues and does not rest on the video evidence alone that it collected and analyzed. September Clues 1-9 and A-H provided many other nuggets of truth, albeit probably salted with disinformation.

    In fact, you have repeatedly brought up comments pertaining to media’s active role in 9/11 on 9/11, which September Clues introduces to those unfamiliar; a nugget of truth worth acknowledging and saving.

    Most of the clues forum’s newer areas of research — demolition fakery, debris fakery, and parts of simVictim — are riper for criticism, because they aren’t supported by strong evidence and analysis and are defended even more poorly by their champions.

    • “The no-planes argument did not originate with September Clues and does not rest on the video evidence alone that it collected and analyzed.”~Señor El Once

      That’s right Señor, and we’ve been through that as well.

      I will reiterate one more time: 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.

      I have given my arguments as to why, and I think all of it is voodoo bullshit to make the 9/11 Truth movement appear to be looneytoon wackos.

      I don’t care if you want to go dig in the gutters for your “nuggets” – go for it, have a jolly good time.

      ww

      • 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.

        Looks like you’ve found a trick to make your two postings of March 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm and March 30, 2012 at 5:31 pm the last postings and final word in this thread. So you have nothing to lose by letting me have the last chronological word with this. You’ve wanted to put this thread to rest; let’s let Mr. McKee lock it down. We can continue this soon enough under some new posting from Truth & Shadows. Enjoy the time off!

        • Señor El Once,

          I reposted the two misplaced comments under my name (with credit to the author) in an attempt to fix the chronology. At least these two aren’t at the bottom anymore. Annoying. I don’t know how to move comments without reposting them. Not ideal.

      • Señor El Once,

        I make no attempt to claim that any issues have been resolved to your satisfaction between us.

        Yet I have noted that they are resolved to my satisfaction in my own construction.

        I will NOT accept your packed hose theory as relevant, as we have been over this numerous times already. The fact that these materials may not have been initially ignited and ended up in pockets throughout the pile has nothing to do with them in containment in a controlled burn,PERIOD. That is my position.

        I did not critique Wood’s textbook, nor claim to – I have critiqued her manner of so-called science. Get that into your head and don’t loose it again because I will not address this one more time Señor.

        I did not pick and choose anything that was particularly easy or hanging fruit from September Clues – I chose the several that I came across. Those were enough to prove to me that Shack has no idea of what he is doing as far as photo analysis. He is a petty amateur, and it is that simple. But if you have some photo that you think has merit, point it out, I will be glad to give a critique of anything on that forum, or in the film that you think is reasonably proven to be faked video or photo’s.

        I am not asking the thread be shut down at all. I merely tried to give Mr. Shack a reasonable amount of time to make some effort on his own behalf, before I made my summation as to what I think of his “work”.

        And I have no religious views per 9/11, I have maintained my positions through reasonable argument based on the best evidence in my view.

        If you see some of my reasoning as unreasonable, then rest assured Señor, we are even on that scale.

        ww

  130. If people wish to understand the postmodern Public Relations Regime, beginning with a hack site like September Clues is a foolish start.

    There is after all, a huge volume of study, beginning with Bernays and Lippmann, and moving through to Marshal McLuhan, and forward that gives the basis for understanding.

    Moving on into the realm of PSYOPS; there is as well volumes of research available on the web and in physical libraries for such studies. Some solid foundation in these things, plus a serious study of history and gleaning the distinction between the lollipop BS myth of academia, and the real thing is also essential.

    For good measure it is well to gain some understanding of epistemology, and other philosophies of the mind and thinking. To also have a grasp of psychology, sociology and cultural anthropology, are the areas of study to begin forming some grasp on the dilemma of this 21st century schizoid society.

    Now I just hope that I am not prodded to revisit yet again, issues that we have gone over countless times from so many different angles. A simple review of this very thread will show how much ground has been covered. Before bringing up any more issues, check above and see if it hasn’t already been addressed.

    ww

  131. Señor El Once,

    Let me give you a brief abstract of why I reject the ‘No-Planes’ hypothesis:

    First of all, what seems to be the ‘best evidence’ as asserted by this faction, that being the affidavit by John Lear. When the flax is sifted away from the kernel, this is the crux of Lear’s own argument, which in fact trumps anything else he has had to say in those 15 or so pages:

    “While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.”~John Lear

    It is simple as that. And the reason “most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet,” is statutory not structural.

    Now that fact coupled with all the visual evidence that tracks the planes at such speeds and the indications are overwhelming that the planes flew that fast for the power-up into the buildings.

    And then we add the fact that not only Shack, but Ace Baker have been refuted as to the so-called “fakery” of the plane crash videos, not merely the arguments I have made but those of other qualified video and photo experts, and what is left?

    At this point I will add one more critique of a Shack exposition:

    “Moreover, consider this: ALL 4 segments showing the “plane approach” are not only perfectly sequential, but each one of them also features the same “now-you-see-me-now-you-don’t” dynamics: PLANE ENTERS FROM EDGE OF SCREEN / THEN DISAPPEARS BEHIND EITHER SMOKE OR THE WTC.”~Simon Schack

    If the plane approach is from real footage, what would one expect BUT to find the footage sequential?

    Same for the framing of the footage.

    The camera focus is on the building, the cameraman or a spotter sees the plane and the camera moves to catch the plane, of course it will come into the frame from the edge of POV.

    The building is billowing smoke…so what is the mystery of the plane disappearing behind the smoke from that angle. As far as an angle of the plane hitting from the other side, what could the mystery possibly be in it disappearing behind the building??

    Where is the logic here?

    All of the visuals make sense as real video – the argument that they are not takes the very aspects one would expect to see – and DOES see, and twists them into “proofs” that what is seen is “ridiculous”. Shack’s arguments are absurd. They are absurd on the very face of them.

    Again, it is deeply discouraging that anyone can read such tripe and not see through it. I stand in wonder at such incredible gullibility.

    ww

  132. Mr. McKee,

    I noticed that the short post addressing Onebornefree was stuck at the bottom of the tread as well.

    I have seen this happen a couple of times on WordPress blogs. Some glitch in their system.

    You’ve done a great job of keeping up with this long and drawn out thread. I hope you’re interested in the topics, having to read them to pass them on…Lol

    ww

    • Thank you for giving me credit for keeping up. I am doing my best. I would ideally love to be more a part of the debate but time is making that difficult. As to the glitch, I don’t know if there’s a way of moving comments around, but if there is, I haven’t found it. There’s a lot about WordPress I have yet to figure out, I think.

      I must say, you are the most prolific “commenter” that this blog has had, particularly in recent weeks. I give you and Señor El Once credit for the effort you put into the debate and the intelligence you both exhibit (regardless of whether I agree or not).

      I have found common ground with Señor El Once on many points over the past year and a half, but the main one is that he is willing to look at controversial areas of study with the belief that you don’t have to accept the whole case in order to find some truth. I understand that you take issue with this, particularly as it pertains to video fakery.

      I don’t like to reject any point of view out of hand just because it seems far-fetched without looking at it myself. After all, just being a 9/11 truther is adopting a far-fetched position according the most people.

      Until all my questions are answered regarding these “taboo” subjects, I’ll continue to consider them. I’m not a big believer in the idea that if you say one “extreme” thing that you risk destroying the movement. That whole “guilt by association” thing is way overstated, in my view.

      I have written about the case of Theresa Renaud (SC is where I learned of this). She is on the air live with Bryant Gumbel and she’s talking about the “explosion” in the North Tower. She states that she “doesn’t know if there was an impact” and, while she’s still on, the South Tower is apparently hit. She exclaims: “Another plane has hit another tower! Explosion!” She sounded to me like she was reading a script. I’m not saying she was, but why would she say what she said?

      On CNN we see the silhouette of a plane enter the screen from right to left and disappear behind the towers as a huge explosion takes place. But none of the on-air personalities notice the plane. It takes two or three minutes before anyone mentions what the whole world saw. What’s up with that? Again, I’m not drawing a conclusion, but I am puzzled by this.

      And the debunking link you provided (one I’ve seen before) does not answer all these questions. In fact, it states in many cases that what’s said in September Clues does NOT conclusively prove video fakery. Fine in principle, but often they don’t prove that a given SC contention is false, they just say it isn’t proven true. Many questions remain in my mind.

      • Mr. McKee,

        Thank you for your comments regarding Señor El Once and myself.

        You say:

        “Until all my questions are answers regarding these “taboo” subjects, I’ll continue to consider them. I’m not a big believer in the idea that if you say one “extreme” thing that you risk destroying the movement. That whole “guilt by association” thing is way overstated, in my view.”

        I don’t want to overstate the “guilt by association” thing either. And I will say that I don’t regard any subject as “taboo”. As you can see from my many comments here, I have considered the points in the Sept.Clues proposition in pretty good depth. So I don’t think there is any way one could say I have hand waved the idea’s – and I am not saying that you have accused me of this in any way, I am merely pointing out that I have put some effort into a counter argument and have not dismissed the issue without some due effort to grasp it.

        Now as far as proofs. It is not the responsibility of a critique to prove a proposition false, it is the responsibility of one offering a hypothesis to prove it. However, from my point of view, as someone who is intimately familiar with the tools and applications used by Mr. Shack, I can say definitively that he has no grasp of the subject of photo analysis.

        But – however again, it is not my purpose here to browbeat or insist on anyone accepting my point of view. And I also appreciate that as administrator of the site that you do not insist on everyone agreeing with your personal points of view.

        ww

  133. Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote an excellent observation in one posting:

    If people wish to understand the postmodern Public Relations Regime, … [t]here is … a huge volume of study, beginning with Bernays and Lippmann, and moving through to Marshal McLuhan, and forward that gives the basis for understanding. Moving on into the realm of PSYOPS; there is as well volumes of research available on the web and in physical libraries for such studies. Some solid foundation in these things, plus a serious study of history and gleaning the distinction between the lollipop BS myth of academia, and the real thing is also essential.

    Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote in another posting in reference to Mr. Shack (and probably Dr. Wood):

    [I]t is deeply discouraging that anyone can read such tripe and not see through it. I stand in wonder at such incredible gullibility.

    The first passage from you explains the second passage from you. And it is discouraging to me that you can admit century’s long (roughly) application of Public Relations manipulation of the perception of the masses, yet so quickly discard September Clues when some of its nuggets of truth are exposing some of the dastardly deeds of the military-corporate media on and after 9/11.

    The duped useful idiot label that I apply to myself can indeed make me gullible. Those little sparkly nuggets of truth attract me like a fishing lure, but that doesn’t mean I swallow them hook, line, and sinker.

    Allow me to give you chops for this link:
    http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

    My apologies for not having reviewed it before my last posting when I wrote:

    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.

    The PDF from 2007 does indeed attempt that episode-by-episode review of September Clues. Hell, I’m gullible enough to see where its criticism is valid and shoots some holes in a concept here or there. (And, of course, first-hand interactions with Mr. Shack here and on his home court expose other holes.)

    But that gullible saloon door swings both ways. I also see where some of Mr. Irving’s criticism, argumentation methods, and conclusions are questionable, and thereby expose agendas along the lines “False in one, false in all”, so that all nuggets of truth can be buried.

    Abstract from Nick Irving:

    This article is a point-by-point analysis of each of the eight episodes in the “September Clues” series. This article will demonstrate that none of the alleged proofs presented in the series has been proven conclusively to be an artefact of ‘TV Fakery’, and that every alleged proof has a more rational and likely explanation.

    As we all know, “all”, “every”, and “none” are slippery slopes to defend. All it takes is one Black Swan to the contrary to send it into a crushing avalanche: “False in one, false in all”, eh? Why couldn’t the authors have been more cautious and exact in their language? [Agenda.] And in the realm of Black Swan, once discovered, 20/20 hindsight provides “a more rational and likely explanation”.

    One would think that it would have been updated since 2007 to account for Episodes 9 and A-H. And, it cherry-picks the bad & ugly to review. What of the good and of the incontrivertible nuggets of truth that the wave of bad & ugly analysis wants to wash away?

    Anthony Lawson assisted and contributed to this. He made his own debunking video since then of September Clues ["September Clues - Busted"], but by my estimation he hardly covers the material in Episode 1. When challenged on this, he essentially parrotted “False in one, false in all”; no reason to review subsequent episodes for anything of redeeming value.

    My concern isn’t for the totality of September Clues (or Dr. Wood’s textbook or nano-thermite).

    My concern is for preserving the good: the nuggets of truth.

    The disinformation ploy being played too often in the realm of 9/11 is for an expert to take ownership of a research area and to steer it. When steering fails, discrediting of the owner happens, sometimes by their own hands.

    To Mr. McKee:

    A mighty fine comment. Thank you for your kind words and summing up my views so nicely:

    Señor El Once … is willing to look at controversial areas of study with the belief that you don’t have to accept the whole case in order to find some truth.

    • Thanks for that reply Señor El Once,

      I can only say that for me there are limits to taking certain propositions seriously. I will not tout my “expertise” other than to say that perhaps if you did understand photo analysis better, you might be more inclined to reject September Clues in a wholesale manner.

      I see that many of the “nuggets” you glean from the site are not so much the visual analysis, but the strange script like management of the dialog by the talking heads. These issues are addressed in a lot of commentary beyond SC, dealing with the Theatrical Presentation on national media.

      But these are two separate issues. Consider that the towers are clearly shown to be exploding, and yet the dialog quickly morphs into “collapsing into their own footprints”. Do you not see that it is not so much as to what is actually shown, but in the way it is subsequently spun? It is the use of hypnotic mantra as psychic jamming that is the power of this medium.

      However, it seems to me that we have entered the phase of begging our arguments. They have become carousels, dizzying and tiresome.

      ww

    • Señor El Once,

      A clarification:

      “[I]t is deeply discouraging that anyone can read such tripe and not see through it. I stand in wonder at such incredible gullibility.”

      I meant this specifically as directed to the sentence by Shack that it addresses.

      As I said above, Shack’s arguments are absurd. He is plainly using rhetoric to attempt to persuade you that you don’t really see that which is right before your very eyes. It is a form of ‘suggestion’, especially when reinterpreting scenes and pointing out aspects you might not have noticed or payed attention to.

      This is why he finds little details to give you the first-up ‘take’ on what the significance of them are. Such as “see how the wing-tip of the plane disappears for a moment in this shot?”

      Unmentioned are the various technical reasons for this phenomena to happen in video, and even analog photography. And this is particularly so for moving objects at a distance.
      Many such things can occur even in first hand real life viewing. The atmosphere and light can interact in visually unexpected ways. Having visual acuity means noticing – taking note of such things in one’s experience.

      Adding such technical phenomena as lens flare, digital blow-out, or fragmenting under certain light and atmospheric conditions can account for many of these types of anomalies – this then coupled with technical glitches in broadcasting signals, interference, varied frame-counts for various cameras, protocol nomenclature from US to British standards in some cases. It becomes an area where one has to have a lot of knowledge to discern anything from such standard video and photo glitches.

      There is also the matter of ‘flattening’ of the image cause when using telephoto lenses.
      All of these issues and more, must be addressed for any rational analysis of such imagery.

      That which should be of even more concern to us here is, that Shack SHOULD know that these issues have been addressed in longstanding critiques. If he doesn’t know he simply isn’t paying any attention because these critiques are all over the web with the keywords ‘September Clues’, or ‘Clues forums’. Yet there is silence from this great prophet of digital fakery, and the continued boast of having never been debunked.

      ww

  134. BTW, I finally received a short reply from Don Dahler:

    Hello Mr. Whitten,

    Thank you for your notes. Actually, I continue to pay close attention to alternative theories of what happened on 9/11 but as of yet I haven’t seen anything that is a viable contradiction of the established facts.

    Sincerely,

    ——————————–I gave a short reply as well:

    Don Dahler – - 4/2/2012

    Hello again Mr. Dahler,

    What a curious thing to say; “established facts.”

    I have been under the impression that in order to establish an assertion as a fact, that assertion had to be actually proven.

    Just to be clear, that you aren’t attempting to trifle with me, can you point to a single established fact as per substance? Anything at all.

    Do you perhaps mean that the government and press got the day of the event right? That the WTC and Pentagon events actually happened on September 11, 2001?

    I am not speaking to such trivial issues as this – I am talking about the issues of substance. As to how it was that a group of fanatics {unproven} with box cutters were successful in defeating the defenses of the most powerful military state in the history of mankind.

    Thank you, Willy Whitten