9/11 Nuggets from Clues Forum

Bruecke Note: September Clues is a 9/11 rabbit hole filled with nuggets of truth that must be mined, but it is also disinformation, as indeed everything we've come to know and understand about 9/11 is in part. Our task is to mine, refine, and re-purpose those nuggets of truth. With September Clues and its clues forum, the nefarious agenda doesn't limit itself to imposing on the 9/11 imagery the distrust but verify a "Ronnie Raygun" paraphrase; no, the agenda makes clear that those making a 9/11 hypothesis based on imagery will see the voracity of that imagery cast into doubt, some valid, some not, but with the stink of taint moving all images to be thrown out.

The following is an edited and mostly one-sided rabbit-hole discussion where the forces of one alleged disinformation entity (the Clues Forum) were pitted against another alleged disinformation entity (Dr. Wood's textbook) to see if the former could find the taint in a set of images used by the latter and legitimately take down some of the latter's hypothesis. Find some taint indeed they did do to a limited degree, making a chink in the book and proving a starting point where tainted images may have duped the author of the latter, misled thinking, and entered the latter's conclusions. Further disinfo revelations of the former is how the Clues Forums works very hard to invalidate imagery leaving a large vacuum in methods deployed on 9/11 that they lamely fill with... conventional demolition and explosives.

Rather than grilling the red meat put before those Dr. Wood haters on the Clues forum, banishment was offered as a reward.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2365468#p2365468

By: Maxwell C. Bridges
Date: 2012-02-22

Hide All / Expand All

---

Herr der Elf : Red-meat for this forum

2012-02-19

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

To the gracious participants of the clues forum,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mr. Shack wrote:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Shack, you write:

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

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

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

Hide All / Expand All
Elsewhere, you wrote:

simonshack wrote:Doesn't Judy Wood do her very best to provide a "scientific explanation" for the absurd imagery of the WTC tower collapses?

Mr. Shack, you have proved that some of digital image/video manipulation occurred in the corporate media on and after 9/11. You have indeed justified the distruct but verify position we should take on everything presented to us. Anyone marginally familiar with military (and political) actions knows that "controlling the media (and the message)" are top agenda items.

What you have not proven, Mr. Shack, is the degree of digital manipulation on individual images and more especially as it relates to the whole set. You have given us reason to question all images, but you haven't proven that all are tainted and should be taken off of the table (which appears to be your agenda). And even of the instances where tainting is proven, the degree of taint versus the complementary degree of "probably real" isn't provided. Admittedly, you have proven multiple instances where everything is CGI imagery; other cases you've proved items were photo-shopped in. My point concerns the aspect of imagery that appear as original, weren't digitally inserted, but had digital things inserted on top of.

You mention the "the absurd imagery of the WTC tower collapses". Yes, it is absurd. Its defiance of the rules of physics blows holes in the official govt conspiracy theory (OCT). If we go with the premise that the perpetrators had deep pockets and deep connections such that they could control the media, what was depicted, and were actively doing this on and after 9/11, why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast? It would not have taken much more digital-manipulation effort to make them physics-compliant and not so absurd.

Thus, the thesis I make is that the vast majority of the images/videos of the tower destructing is "real" or close enough to the "real-reality" in the grander scheme that the towers were destroyed in a spectacular fashion. When the hand of digital manipulation entered, it may have been to mask out tell-tale flashes, anomalous destructive features, or projectiles that were too energetic. They wanted to show the world that the towers were being destroyed, but not give away methods.

In terms of the photoshopping of individual images? Advertisements already photoshop drop-dead georgeous women into unreal images of beauty. I can certainly see all manner of publications on 9/11 taking license with images in terms of crafting a single composite image from separate images of debris, firemen, American flags, etc. It doesn't mean the individual elements were all false or didn't exist at ground zero.

simonshack wrote:Wasn't she perhaps brought in to "protect" (and uphold the dwindling credibility) of at least PART of the prefabricated, made-for-TV 9/11 Hollywood movie?

Again, no. If she was brought in for anything nefarious, it was to scoop up all evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event, to misinterpret it into being something "zany" (Hutchison Effect, free-energy from Hurricane Erin), and to thus take said evidence off of the table from further consideration.


Here's some red-meat for this forum, particularly for those who have little respect for Dr. Wood.

Want to debunk her (or at least part of her premises)?

Please caste a keen eye on the following images, being on the look out for artifacts of digital manipulation.

Caveat: Part of the assignment may include finding another web repository for the images that will be closer to being source or the original.

I apologize in advance that this isn't my forte, so I haven't been collecting them and don't have as great a knowledge of all that exist or are even available as you in this forum do.


http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/hotslagil3.jpg


http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/5139_0_s.jpg


http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/jn08.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

Consider this the starting set of images needing review to see if and how much digital manipulation occurred.

The prospective second set of images for digital forgery review could be those on Dr. Wood's website (or a source website) that show damage to vehicles.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

Final note: I own and have read Dr. Wood's book. It is pretty crafty, really. She presents information well for a science-challenged audience, particularly in disproving the OCT. She offers several new concepts that could have scientific validity; applicability to 9/11 is a different question. She does not definitively connect these with 9/11. Her textbook is a worthy addition to anyone's 9/11 library, even if parts of it are proven as disinformation. (The latter will be for our grand children to show how our generation was played.) I have found few errors in Dr. Wood's textbook, but that may change if various images provided to her are found tainted.

I am a respectful, open-minded, and objective participant. When the foundation upon which my opinions are based is proven in error, I am man enough to change my opinions. Mr. Shack has already done this several times for me with regards to my understanding of 9/11.

I know that some regular participants here will want to ban me on sight for the crime of even mentioning Dr. Wood in a favorable light. Yours is a forum for image manipulation, not discussions on Dr. Wood. They are related and must be discussed, particularly where they overlap.

My challenge to you is to find the errors in the photographic evidence upon which Dr. Wood bases her work. You will be doing the 9/11 Truth Movement a great service. Aside from the images that you rake over the coals as frauds, it will be just as important to preserve those images that are not and that remain as valid nuggets of truth that the true theory of 9/11 must address.

I ask that you be respectful and focused on the facts; please stay away from attacks on the person, Dr. Wood. If found warranted, you'll have plenty of opportunity to venture there once the investigative work has unhinged (or not) the foundation of her evidence.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this manner,
Herr der Elf

Hide All / Expand All

---

Herr der Elf : What would someone proving exactly HOW the towers were brought down contribute to exposing the 9/11 Hoax?

2012-02-19

by Herr der Elf February 19th, 2012, 10:41 pm

Herr der Elf wrote: . . .why did the various angles of absurd, physics-defying WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 towers destruction ever get CGI made and broadcast? It would not have taken much more digital-manipulation effort to make them physics-compliant and not so absurd.

HonestlyNow wrote:Please explain exactly what would be the non-absurd physics-compliant result of a large aluminum-tube plane plowing into a larger and very tall steel building. You may use historical examples of similar occurences, if necessary.

Dear Mr. HonestlyNow,

You are preaching to the choir, mixing (faux) events, and distracting from the assignment. To your point, the pixels of the plane crashing into the tower was also absurd and physics-defying. But it has the tinge of almost being believable, because it isn't every day we experience planes crashing into buildings. We don't have many reference points for such an event.

Buildings being destroyed, on the other hand, we do know about. And so does Hollywood. If they could have made it look physics-compliant, they would have, I'm sure. I don't think they were given that luxury. Too many cameras rolling, too many angles. The best they could do, as we see from Simon Shack's images, was to mask things so that the flashes of the true causes weren't exposed.



This group excels at showing where the tell-tale signs of manipulation entered the picture.

I'm trying to figure out the how. I need help trimming the fat from Dr. Wood's textbook, as well as in killing the sacred cow of super super nano-thermite.

Mr. Shack asked me:

simonshack wrote: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. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/#comment-3395 ]

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.

---

Herr der Elf : faking everything might just be a step into the disinfo bin

2012-02-21

by Herr der Elf February 21st, 2012, 2:53 pm

Burningame wrote:It sounds to me like you're still trying to fight the concept that everything has been faked.

It sounds to me like you are fighting the concept that faking everything might just be a step into the disinfo bin and where you are being duped. Aside from being a bit unrealistic to accomplish end-to-end and in cases quasi-real-time, it all too conveniently takes a wealth of information off of the table.

Tainting of some, or even most media? Sure. I'll bite. Distrust but verify.

But if everything was truly faked, they would have done a much better job of the WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 destruction, like in making them a teenie-weenie more physics compliant which would have been easily within their power to achieve. The various angles on WTC-7 in particular that showed over 100 feet of free-fall is something you should study. If fake, how stupid can they get? If real, well it kind of explains the footage disappearing from the media instant-replay circus for quite some time.

Burningame wrote:Once you pass that milestone, you would see the fallacy of Judy Wood's basing her whole concept on fake imagery.

Overplaying your cards. Dr. Wood does not base her whole concept on fake imagery. Get her book to find out. Granted, fake imagery may have snuck into her analysis, but the burden of proving all that was fake has not been met. Hence my challenge on your digital masters to positively identify what has been tainted, and then you'll win a chance of potentially debunking a premise or two from the good Dr. Wood.

Failure to positively identify in each and every image what has been tainted will leave those images in the realm of depicting reality, and as such requiring an explanation. Vetting the images either way -- tainted vs. real -- will be a great service to 9/11 truth.

Human wrote:In my humble opinion ALL of the mechanisms of destruction is irrelevant because none of it (evidence ex:dust/steel beam's etc) would be permissible in a court of law, the court would simply ask to prove the evidence is from the buildings destroyed on 9/11 and since the evidence has been picked up and taken away it would be impossible, therefore the case would be thrown out rather quickly. The only evidence we have is the fake t.v. broadcast's and "amateur" photo's/video, which can be shown in a court of law quite easily how it was done.

... Aside from this, they'd probably put a Bush relative onto the bench (as they did in the recent April Gallop case) to further make it unlikely that a court of law would be fair.

However, to say that "ALL of the mechanisms of destruction are irrelevant" is being lazy. Some mechanisms everyone cares about, whereby things with nuclear components is one of them. Such speculation also provides motive for the song-and-dance and extra effort by those in power to lead everyone astray.

---

Herr der Elf : find the artifacts of digital manipulation

2012-02-21

by Herr der Elf February 21st, 2012, 5:13 pm

Human wrote:Lazy? no, running around searching for evidence of nuclear use by looking at Fake videos and photo's is pointless to me, especially when it can never be used in court of law. Please tell me who is "everyone" and then show us here a video or photo from 9/11 which shows signs of a nuclear device being used in any aspect of that day.

Your re-framing of the task doesn't fly. You were not asked to "search for evidence of nuclear use". Nope.

You were asked to find the artifacts of digital manipulation that might prove one or more of the following images as tainted. Supposedly, this is aligned with the skillset of this forum.

And, upon finding the evidence of such tainting, you would win the chance of possibly debunking a premise or two presented by Dr. Wood (and others). For a forum with such a hatred of Dr. Wood, what could be better than that?!!









http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

As for your court of law quips, what makes you think that even your proof of tainted 9/11 images will be presented? It is not the court of law that we are aiming for. We're aiming for the court of public opinion.

Now if this forum doesn't have the nuggets to approach this focused image debunking (or vetting) task in a serious manner, that'll be a bad sign for this entire clues forum. Do not underestimate it.

I mean, if this forum is going to go bragging to the world that all of the 9/11 imagery was FAKE, then you had better prove it... Starting with the images and links I've provided. Succeed in finding the taint, and you just might find yourself killing two birds with one stone, namely any disbelief regarding the extent of the tainting and taking out of play images Dr. Wood (and others) use to make their case.

(Burninggame and others: do not play shill-associating games with me. It has too much of a "he who smelt it, dealt it" quality to it. I'm a duped useful idiot and therefore cannot be a shill. Being such a duped useful idiot, you can easily get me to sing a different tune, but it is evidence and analysis based on sound science that will (un)dupe me as such. Here's the irony. I'm duped by both Dr. Wood and September Clues. If the Clues Forum does what it is good at with regards to the images above and links to other images, well by golly you just might have an instrumental hand in unduping me from supporting Dr. Wood. Avoid the task with your shilly-games, the unduping may get applied to the Clues Forum itself.)

---

Herr der Elf : Do it for your own reputations

2012-02-21

---

by Herr der Elf February 21st, 2012, 9:49 pm

AngelDust wrote:Herr der Elf, you shilly boy! These boats were pasted on the Hudson River, hence their square-ish pixel outlines on zoom in.

Dear AngelDust,

Awesome postings about the square-ish pixel outline (in the fifth picture)! I knew the advanced digital editing skillset of this forum would come in handy. With regards to the smoke itself, anything unusual about it?





The third picture from James Nachtwey ought to be an easy candidate to knock off as fake.

nonhocapito wrote:We are not here to perform for you any sort of demonstration. We are not here to convince you of anything. This never ending Judy Wood issue you guys try to shove down our throats is getting to be seriously emetic, bothersome, pointless and inconclusive, in other words a waste of time -- and our forum has had enough of it.

Don't do anything for me.

Do it for the Truth.

Do it for your own reputations.

Simon Shack is rather forceful with his conclusions that none of the 9/11 imagery can be trusted. The distrust has been proven to be well-earned. But he goes on to insist that all of the 9/11 imagery was faked.

I'm just humbly asking that it be proved.

And I'm making the task a little bit more manageable by limiting it to just those images Dr. Wood employed.

If the topic of Dr. Wood is truly so "seriously emetic, bothersome, pointless and inconclusive", then consider the boost in Clues Forum credibility with the mainstream truthers when your crew legitimately takes out of commission some of the pictorial evidence used by Dr. Judy Wood to support some of her "zany" theories. That ought to count for something!

Mr. Shack's and your negative opinions regarding Dr. Wood are well known. I'm not here to convince you or this forum of anything. Through your diligence in this task, maybe you'll convince me via the undermining of her evidence that your negative opinions have validity. I welcome such a day!

Alas, even limiting the source images to that re-used by Dr. Wood, I have my doubts that 100% fakes will be reached. I can't even guess what the faked percentage will be, but it'll put everything on more solid footing to know which images are definitely tainted and which images are such great fakes that they are still in the running for depicting reality.

nonhocapito wrote:If you find it more reasonable, more plausible, more likely, more feasible, safer and cheaper to imagine unprovable alleged energy weapons to explain a series of controlled demolitions, rather than simply realizing that anything we have been shown could easily be faked with Hollywood/newsmedia manipulative methods -- then I don't think you belong to this forum, nor you can claim any understanding or appreciation of September Clues. I suggest you go elsewhere.

I'm not here to argue the feasibility of faking imagery. That's not my realm of expertise.

Let's also not have you argue about "unprovable alleged energy weapons to explain a series of controlled demolitions". This is neither the purpose of this forum nor quite obviously within the realm of your expertise.

Legitimately take out what you can of Dr. Wood's pictorial evidence. The chips will fall from there where they may. That'll be a big accomplishment for which the 9/11 Truth Movement and I will be eternally grateful.

---

Herr der Elf : Concentrate on the pictures and analyze their taintedness level

2012-02-21

by Herr der Elf February 21st, 2012, 10:23 pm

Dear Human,

I apologize for not being clearer when I provided the links to Dr. Wood's website.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

Please ignore just about everything she writes. Concentrate on the pictures and analyze their taintedness level.

What's my agenda?

My hypothesis is that once a critical level of proven tainted images is reached for a given theory, that theory will need to be re-assessed and maybe even re-canted. (This doesn't apply to just Dr. Wood.) When considering specifically the images that Dr. Wood uses, I expect a percentage of legitimately proven tainted images and a complimentary percentage of authentic-as-far-as-we-can-tell images (e.g., a nugget of truth).

Once this trial by fire burns off the tainted dross of disinformation, nuggets of truth might remain. The devious part of my agenda is that for any 9/11 theory to be valid, it must address all nuggets of truth while avoiding the tainted dross.

---

simonshack : a logical thought process

2012-02-22

by simonshack February 22nd, 2012, 12:01 am

Dear Herr Elf.

Let me try and take you through a logical thought process - one which I have painstakingly developed for myself throughout almost half-a-decade of 9/11 research. I will use - as you have requested - some of the images posted on Judy Wood's website, which she obviously uses as a basis to her own thought processes (or, as appears more likely to me, her deliberately misleading 9/11 gatekeeping processes).


Judy Wood's portrait - ( posted on her own website: http://www.drjudywood.com/)

Interestingly, you submitted this image (from the Judy Wood website) - credited to one "Greg Semendinger" - and officially released only on February 11, 2010: http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sep ... 1_2010.jpg


Now, this Youtube video (with over 10 million views) features a pretty much identical, aerial point of view:

So a first question logically arises: how did the atrocious quality of the above-linked video turn - in 2010 - into a quite sharp, high-resolution image - such as the one posted on Judy Wood's website? Are we supposed to believe that Greg Semendinger was equipped with a crappy, "19th century" video camera - AND a top brand Nikon still camera?

Now, what about that chalk-white smoke seen in many 9/11 images? Since when does a kerosene/or office fire produce chalk-white smoke? Even this alleged satellite image (from Judy Wood's website) shows chalk-white smoke:


Which of the two above images are we supposed to believe in? Would it be logical to believe in one of the two?

We then have THIS picture from Judy Wood's website (featuring WTC6):


Here are 3 other images featuring WTC6 images. Which one is real? (I have only bothered to put a couple of arrows here and there - but there are many more problems with this image trio. Verify the details for yourself - I'd hate to spoon-feed you:


Wait - perhaps the one posted on Judy Wood's website is real - since it has more decent resolution? Would that be a logical assumption to do? I don't think so. In my world, plain logic suggests that ALL are equally fake.

Here again, we have a frame extracted from a Judy Wood video:


Have we seen this scenery before? Yes indeed. It is the same as this one - a gradient map test I did some while ago which proves that firefighters were inserted over the rubble imagery:


And it is the same little spot of rubble scenery as this too:


Of course, I could go on and on, but I trust you are already familiar with the extensive amount of evidence to be found in this forum (and at http://www.septemberclues.info) exposing the systematic use of CGI to craft the imagery related to the 9/11 events. I must say I have a hard time grasping the logic & gist of your requirements, dear Herr Elf. Are you actually asking us to work harder - and expose 100% of the available 9/11 imagery - frame-by-frame? Isn't that a tad unreasonable/unrealistic?

Wouldn't it be more reasonable for me to ask you to have a go at debunking my work?
UNDEBUNKABLE SEPTCLUES: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=961

I frankly couldn't care less about Judy Wood and her collapse theories. What we do here is to expose the NEWS MEDIA'S COMPLICITY with the 9/11 psyop. Whether nukes, DEW, nano-thermite or (more logically) safe and ultra-reliable conventional demo-explosives were used to bring the towers is the least of my concerns. It certainly seems to generate heaps of circular debates all over the internet - conveniently allowing the old farts behind this hoax more time to live out their wretched lives without having their fat, millionaire-asses kicked by the law or the people.

---

simonshack : The long and slow zoom-in motion for all of 18 seconds and...whoopee, the WTC1 starts collapsing!

2012-02-22

by simonshack February 22nd, 2012, 1:25 am

kansasinnovember wrote:... the BLUE SKY,CHOCOLATE SKY,ORANGE SKY etc etc....Never mind,just blame it on those brand new hi-tech LSD televisions.

ORANGE/CHOCOLATE? (WTC2 collapse as aired by NBC on 9/11)


BLUE? (WTC1 collapse as aired by CBS4 on 9/11)


GREY? (WTC1 collapse as aired LIVE by CNN on 9/11)

Please note that I have speeded up the above gif (only to make it less heavy to upload). The long and slow zoom-in motion actually lasts for all of 18 seconds - thereafter, the zoom-in motion stops and...whoopee, the WTC1 starts collapsing! http://septemberclues.info/wtc_collapses.htm

We are therefore asked to believe that the cameraman in that CNN chopper had some magical intuition that WTC1 was about to collapse - and zoomed in on it ...just by some synchronical, serendipitious happenstance! You're free to believe in the magick! (Please know that this CNN clip is the ONLY LIVE SHOT we have of the WTC1 collapse initiation).

---

Herr der Elf : a grade on each and every image

2012-02-22

by Herr der Elf February 22nd, 2012, 1:05 pm

Human wrote:I believe ALL of the collapse video's (from media and "amateur"), "plane" entering picture video's are fake and have been proven quite substantially here, I also believe based upon what I have seen and researched that a large portion of the 9/11 imagery pool photo's are fake due to CGI, Photo shop, image layering, re-targeting and other methods of involvement, BUT, I also believe there are photo's that are not fake as far as the methods explained above and that the photo's are simply props used to convey to the masses a sense of "more damage" if you will and this is standard stuff in psyop warfare.

On the above, I believe as you do. Especially your more reasoned belief that "there are photos that are not fake."

Human wrote:It seems like you are trying to pick a fight by saying "Simon said ALL photo's are fake" prove it!

I no longer recall where Mr. Shack wrote it in a response to me, but Mr. Shack did indeed say words to the effect "all 9/11 imagery is fake," which I thought was a bit over-the-top and over-generalized and told him so. I tried to get him to measure his words a bit more, but he maintains that hard-line position.

It is not my desire to corner Mr. Shack on proving every 9/11 image was faked. I'm just giving him a little bit of the raspberries. What I am trying to achieve is more or less a grade on each and every image (still/video) on a scale definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that point in time.) And to narrow the scope of the initial work even further, I suggest focusing on Dr. Wood's images.

I also have a personal agenda. When I entered this discussion, I said I championed both Dr. Wood and September Clues, but in a left- and back-handed sort of a way. It is because I champion Dr. Wood that I earnestly hope that the taint in more of her images will be exposed, which in turn will legitimately question theories based on such images.

I'm sticking my neck out in this defense. The sooner I have definitive debunking of evidence used to bolster bat-shit crazy theories, the sooner I can change my tune, change my mind, and champion something else. I don't like being the fool. However, I'd be proven an even bigger fool if I let unsubstantiated "debunking" not be questioned.

Human wrote:The photo's of burnt cars and trucks on Wood's site show to me nothing more than props picked up from a junkyard complete with missing door handles and smashed out windows which were torched purposely by the perps (probably after people were evacuated from the area's) and that is all, no need for space based weaponry, mini nukes or anything else, just some cans of gas and a sledgehammer. The ones which are more severely damaged were simply parked in an area were debri from the controlled demo would affect them and then towed to certain areas for the world to see and photograph.

I've discovered a few instances where Dr. Wood got it wrong. For example, her analysis of a fire truck's burned front end was off, because the engine sat further back. The same police car was photographed from a couple of different locations, which is a serious blow to theories used to explain damage to vehicles at the bridge where they were towed.

But to say that all of those vehicles were props or were staged? Testimony contradicts that. The way they were popping off on the street between WTC-6 and WTC-7, in the parking lot catty-corner, and all along West Broadway that T's into the WTC at WTC-7 (before the WTC-7 was pulled) was not the work of a sledgehammer and can of gas. Please don't make light of it.

---

Herr der Elf : Disagreeing with Simon's Assessment

2012-02-22

by Herr der Elf February 22nd, 2012, 1:06 pm

Dear Mr. Shack,

Thank you for stepping in and sharing your thought process.

simonshack wrote:Interestingly, you submitted this image (from the Judy Wood website) - credited to one "Greg Semendinger" - and officially released only on February 11, 2010: http://www.septclues.com/PICTURES%20sep ... 1_2010.jpg

Now, this Youtube video (with over 10 million views) features a pretty much identical, aerial point of view:

The two above images are from two different events. The top image shows the demolition of WTC-1, the second tower to collapse. The bottom image shows the WTC-1 still standing and is sometime after WTC-2 was demolished.

simonshack wrote: So a first question logically arises: how did the atrocious quality of the above-linked video turn - in 2010 - into a quite sharp, high-resolution image - such as the one posted on Judy Wood's website? Are we supposed to believe that Greg Semendinger was equipped with a crappy, "19th century" video camera - AND a top brand Nikon still camera?

You're implying that the high-resolution image came from the same video with the poor quality. Are you sure of your sources that both were made from the same helicopter, the same photographer, and/or the same camera? I do not know the answer. Unless you have some substantiation, my assumption is two different cameras.

I would be interested in learning of any digital manipulation to the top image.

simonshack wrote:Now, what about that chalk-white smoke seen in many 9/11 images? Since when does a kerosene/or office fire produce chalk-white smoke? Even this alleged satellite image (from Judy Wood's website) shows chalk-white smoke:


Which of the two above images are we supposed to believe in? Would it be logical to believe in one of the two?

You are mixing images from different points in time and angles and trying to use that as an indication of fakery. The time factor is important, because the initial fires were supposedly the result of jet fuel or whatever accelerant they used to create the fire ball. As that burned off and burned into the office furnishings, this changed the color of smoke. Aside from the fuel being burned at the time of the shot, it seems to me the angle it is viewed from with respect to the sun can also change the color of the smoke.

A more important aspect relating to time that needs to be taken into consideration is that WTC-7 had fires that started at around 9:30 a.m. before either tower came down. There were also several cars on fire on the street. So the image on the lower-right with smoke you are labeling "WHITE" ("GRAY" to me) actually still has black-ish smoke billowing from the towers while that gray smoke comes up from the fires in other buildings and locations closer to the ground.

Now we can consider the satellite image, which has both a black plume and a much larger white one. This is supposedly after the WTC complex has been leveled. Like the white-ish dust that went everywhere, the large white plume in space (if valid) is attributed to the super fine dust created in the pulverization that was so fine and light that it went into the sky rather than settling on the ground. But, this really depends on the validity of the satellite image. One of the Clues Crew already pointed out examples of digital manipulation in the boats to already clue us in to its fakery. I'd like to know if the white smoke is valid.

This satellite image, although used by Dr. Wood, comes from a more established govt source. For example, the satellite image with the large white smoke trail was used even when discussing with Dr. Jenkins to explain where content went, e.g., pulverized so fine that it went practically into orbit.



No need for me to discuss the WTC-6 composite: I'll rest on your analysis. Thank you. For future reference, I would like to be spoon fed.

simonshack wrote:Of course, I could go on and on, but I trust you are already familiar with the extensive amount of evidence to be found in this forum (and at http://www.septemberclues.info) exposing the systematic use of CGI to craft the imagery related to the 9/11 events. I must say I have a hard time grasping the logic & gist of your requirements, dear Herr Elf. Are you actually asking us to work harder - and expose 100% of the available 9/11 imagery - frame-by-frame? Isn't that a tad unreasonable/unrealistic?

Mr. Shack, you did indeed say words to the effect "all 9/11 imagery is fake," which I thought was a bit over-the-top and over-generalized and told you so. I tried to get you to measure your words a bit more, but at the time you maintained that hard-line position. When it comes to describing how we should approach 9/11 imagery, you are welcome to use the paraphrased "Ronnie Raygun-ism: Distrust but Verify."

I agree that it is a tad unreasonable and unrealistic to ask you to expose 100% of the available 9/11 imagery - frame-by-frame. This was not my request.

A significantly more manageable subset of that grand whole is what Dr. Wood uses. And even then, the two web pages that I have targeted go right to the heart of a couple matters. Just a simple gradient grading of each image from definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that moment in time captured by the camera's shutter.)

I mentioned my larger agenda. I have a personal one, too, unfortunately. I'm a duped useful idiot when it comes to Dr. Wood's textbook (and September Clues). I'm standing on her evidence and theories to evolve my own and deviate. Proving the extent that her pictorial evidence was tainted trims the fat and rot from her theories; it cuts both ways regarding strengthening and undermining mine. I don't like being the champion of bat-shit crazy theories if I am factually in error due to the craftiness with which tainted 9/11 images entered our consciousness and perverted our beliefs. Depending on what is revealed, I might have to issue a public apology for having led people astray.

---

nonhocapito : The only purpose of Judy Wood is to pollute the idea of fakery with fantasy scenarios in order to keep the terror factor high

2012-02-22

by nonhocapito February 22nd, 2012, 2:59 pm

Enough with this insufferable Judy Wood!

The only purpose of Judy Wood is to pollute the idea of fakery with fantasy scenarios in order to keep the terror factor high.

Scary energy weapons are terrifying -- photoshop is laughable.

People like you, Herr der Elf, and your beloved barely-existing Judy Wood, seem to be actively working to keep the terror-potential of 9/11 high. On this forum the approach is rather different... At the center of the picture we put Hollywood and the media, that kind of angle, not fancy futuristic military scenarios. The final result is emancipation, not just an alternative form of "terror for the enlightened".

And getting to your phony "explain this" attitude (so utterly phony): arguing whether one or the other picture could "represent reality" is the wrong, misleading approach. The crucial idea is that everything could be faked. That's enough to connect a whole lot of dots.

You guys always come with the same argument, clinging to one or the other image that according to you cannot be explained with fakery. This is such a waste of time! We are not here to perform for you demonstrations of fakery! You act as if you are guided by logic -- but then you seem to think that on 9/11 we had fake videos and pictures, representing unreal events, followed, somehow, by real events shown as a consequence of those unreal preceding causes. Talk about logic!

Personally I tend to think that the demolitions of the towers were traditional demolitions that looked like traditional demolitions. And this was reason enough to fake the collapse as well as the rubble as well as the planes and the explosions! All your reasoning about fine dust and such is a waste of time because even you cannot have any certainty that the pictures are real, especially when we assume that planes and falling dummies were not. I cannot for the life of me imagine a moment when the pigs turned a switch and decided that from that moment on reality could be exposed because it was under control. That moment never came.

Just answer this question: could everything be faked? If so, why wouldn't everything be faked? Or, in other words: Why does the film and TV industry always favor filming in studio against real locations?

---

Makkonen : The bizarre grey-blue color blend

2012-02-22

by Makkonen February 22nd, 2012, 4:14 pm

Why would anyone, let alone a firefighter, step straight into a fire? Speaking of which, it is a rather strange and nonsensical "ring" or "circle" of fire that hasn't spread despite the masses of papers(!) around. The picture is an obvious fabrication.




Ah, James Nachtwey. What a convenient place to "photograph" SO SOON after the "disaster". In reality, a civilian _anybody_ should have no business whatsoever INSIDE DEVASTATED BUILDINGS FULL OF POSSIBLY HAZARDOUS DEBRIS, GASES, etc. Sorry for the caps lock, but this picture doesn't represent reality even as an "idea".




I've added an arrow to the "collapse"/"pulverization" image to draw attention to some strange stuff going on in there. The bizarre grey-blue(!) section is what caught my attention. That color blend isn't seen anywhere else in the picture; the shape cannot decide whether it's smoke or freshly pulverized material; there's a heavy "shadow" only on the other side of the section, just below the arrow. Overall, this jarring section is probably the result of some heavy-handed layering in PS. Also, I think I'm seeing some tiny "face" figures in the collapse powder-smoke-stuff, but that's to be expected - that was and is one of the trademarks of the WTC collapse animations/stills. A little bit of strange "fun" for the CGI teams, I guess...

---

simonshack : Falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus

2012-02-22

by simonshack February 22nd, 2012, 5:38 pm

Herr der Elf wrote: For example, the satellite image with the large white smoke trail was used even when discussing with Dr. Jenkins to explain where content went, e.g., pulverized so fine that it went practically into orbit.

That one's new to me - the dust went practically "into orbit"?

Ah yes - here we see it...and look, up it goes - in a mushroom cloud! Khalezov must be onto something, after all!

(From umpteenth phony "amateur video" - credited to one 'Jim Kosior': viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1130&p=2360958&hilit=mushroom+cloud#p2360958

Dear Herr Elf - I hope you'll pardon me for indulging in a little comic relief from time to time. Don't know about you, but the sheer amount of ridiculous 9/11 imagery ultimately breaks me up - in fits of uncontrollable laughter.

Falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus
Humor aside, let me now expound what leads me to maintain my 'hard-line position', as you call it: that is, to assert - or if you prefer, 'to postulate' - that all the available imagery depicting the crucial 9/11 events (as well as the controlled, Ground Zero 'crime scene') is false. Now, before going any further, let us (hopefully) come to an agreement regarding the meaning of 'false' - and its logical/investigative implications - since you seem to nurture the notion that perhaps some image/footage of 9/11 might be legit/authentic/genuine/or as they say, 'kosher':

Herr der Elf wrote:What I am trying to achieve is more or less a grade on each and every image (still/video) on a scale definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that point in time.)

Good Heavens. I had to highlight in red your "each and every image (stll/video)" quote - lest you deny that you ever wrote such a thing! Let me get this right: Even if there existed a 'scale/or grade' with which to 'gauge/or rate' the falseness of any given image, would you say that an image scoring a lower 'rate of falseness' puts it in some sort of 'possibly genuine' waiting list? I would say that to grant the benefit of doubt to any 9/11 image - at this advanced stage of our analyses/investigations - is an 'over-the-top' presumption of innocence which I doubt any fair judge would concede to any defendant. Instead, there is a good old legal principle (in latin,"Falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus") which would ideally apply to our particular investigation. Let me quote 9/11 researcher "onebornfree", who explains this principle in simple words:

THE "FALSE IN ONE - FALSE IN ALL" LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

For those that do not know, there is a simple legal principle named "false in one false in all"[try "googling" that phrase], whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false then they have the incontestable right to discount all "evidence" provided by that person/entity.

Therefore, and according to that principle, should anyone find any one part of the government/media 911 story to be false, then it is perfectly acceptable for that person to then conclude that _all_ "evidence" supplied by the government/media and/or "witnesses", is either knowingly false, or simply to be distrusted, until definitively proven otherwise.
http://www.dailypaul.com/120138/deconstructing-the-grand-deception-by-simon-shack-december-31-2009

I will reply to your other queries in a separate post, Mr. Elf.

---

Maat : pearls before der schweinehund

2012-02-22

by Maat February 22nd, 2012, 6:46 pm

Ah, such pearls before der schweinehund, Simon!

nonhocapito wrote:Personally I tend to think that the demolitions of the towers were traditional demolitions that looked like traditional demolitions. And this was reason enough to fake the collapse as well as the rubble as well as the planes and the explosions!

Well said, Nonho!

And I personally don't believe there is any such person as "'Dr' Judy Wood", only a fictitious identity played by an agent acting as, to quote Brianv's apt metaphor, "One of those ugly stinking plants that smell of rotten corpses!" Just as the name of 'her' supposed fauxtographer "Semen dinger" is also an obviously crude joke.

Interesting that Herr der Elf (i.e. German for "lord/master of the eleven" same as his Spanish version: "Señor El Once") seems to share the perps' obsession with certain numbers, unless the dates he chose to post his shill-fest by verbal attrition here are all coincidences. Note that his 1st post on Cluesforum was July 25th [7/7], 2011. Then 6 months later, his 2nd post is on January 17th [1/17=9]. Finally, his first post since January & on this thread: February 18th [2/18=11].

Is that mere coincidence? What are the odds?

Herr Duh's name is a pun too, e.g. 'herder' (cyber-herder?) 'of eleven' & 'elf': mischievous trickster; but I think the Spanish version is missing the N for 'nonce'

---

Herr der Elf : focus like an ironic space-based laser beam on the imagery of her textbook/website and take it out of play legitimately

2012-02-22

by Herr der Elf February 22nd, 2012, 8:28 pm

nonhocapito wrote:Enough with this insufferable Judy Wood! The only purpose of Judy Wood is to pollute the idea of fakery with fantasy scenarios in order to keep the terror factor high. Scary energy weapons are terrifying -- photoshop is laughable.

Dear Mr. NonHocapito,

For someone who envisions that everything concerning 9/11 was fake, your imagination has evidently run out of steam if you can only ascribe one purpose to Dr. Wood. And oh, dear me. Her dasterdly purpose according to you cuts so quickly to the heart of what you champion.

I must be dense, because I see Mr. Shack and others pointing out quite the opposite. Those frail ideas of fakery when focused on the very evidence presented by Dr. Wood seem to cut the other direction and unravel some of Dr. Wood's theories. (As a courtesy to you, I will defer writing about the details of the unraveling to somewhere else in cyberspace... unless requested otherwise.)

If Dr. Wood is so insufferable, then suffer this discussion to focus like an ironic space-based laser beam on the imagery of her textbook/website and take it out of play legitimately. For a Dr. Wood hater such as yourself, that would be a mighty fine feather to put into your cap.

nonhocapito wrote: And getting to your phony "explain this" attitude (so utterly phony): arguing whether one or the other picture could "represent reality" is the wrong, misleading approach. The crucial idea is that everything could be faked. That's enough to connect a whole lot of dots.

Quite right: The crucial idea is that everything could be faked.

What's your problem with definitively proving in Dr. Wood's evidence was is undoubtedly fake? This is the assignment that could take down the insufferable Dr. Wood.

And why are you projecting your weaknesses onto me? Talk about a uttery phony attitude, here you are saying "A David Copperfield-esque magician trick disappeared the towers using television into duping us into what to believe. (So far, so good... until you continue.) Don't worry your pretty little heads about the actual mechanics of destruction. We should all cop the "don't-explain-this" attitude and move along, folk! Nothing to see here."

nonhocapito wrote: You guys always come with the same argument, clinging to one or the other image that according to you cannot be explained with fakery. This is such a waste of time! We are not here to perform for you demonstrations of fakery! You act as if you are guided by logic -- but then you seem to think that on 9/11 we had fake videos and pictures, representing unreal events, followed, somehow, by real events shown as a consequence of those unreal preceding causes. Talk about logic! :lol:

Mr. Nonhocapito, I asked Mr. Shack for a new thread. When he made his 02 Feb 2012 posting on Dr. Wood and made reference to me, I just assumed that this is where he wanted my assignment discussed.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&start=195#p2364872

"We are not here to perform for you demonstrations of fakery!" Nonsense. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too. You spout from your soap box not to trust any 9/11 imagery, that Dr. Wood is disinfo because she bases her conclusions on faked images, and that everything could be faked. When I challenge the forum for specifics, you get all testy and defensive.

September Clues is a big forum. If this is such a big waste of time, why don't you go occupy yourself elsewhere in the land of fakery while us adults consider Dr. Wood's evidence and take it down in a meaningful, legitimate manner?

nonhocapito wrote: Personally I tend to think that the demolitions of the towers were traditional demolitions that looked like traditional demolitions. And this was reason enough to fake the collapse as well as the rubble as well as the planes and the explosions!

Talking out of both sides of your mouth. How could the demolitions "look like traditional demolitions" when such visual cues being faked is exactly what this forum is about? What you personally think is obviously shaped by watching too much faking of things on television. It doesn't appear to have much science or physics to back it up.

Lots of clues not reliant on photos or video take traditional demolition techniques out of contention. FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner connect were pulverized. FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink. FACT: the amount of traditional explosives required to meet this energy requirement is massive and presents legitimate logistic nightmares. FACT: hot-spots burned under the rubble without Oxygen for many weeks. FACT: traditional explosives cannot account for the hot-spots. FACT: even untraditional nano-thermite cannot account for the hot-spots without the simple math applied to its burn-rate suggesting unreasonably massive overkill amounts of the material.

Given that science reflected through your thinking is now proven to be a major weakness of yours, I suggest you refrain from speculating erroneously about causes for the observed destruction and focus where your strengths lie in proving instance-after-instance of faking in the imagery. Take Dr. Wood down legitimately.

nonhocapito wrote:Just answer this question: could everything be faked? If so, why wouldn't everything be faked? Or, in other words: Why does the film and TV industry always favor filming in studio against real locations?

No, everything could not be faked.

Unless you are making the ludicrous insinuation that: "The towers and the WTC complex were not destroyed for real! They are still standing! One of these days, David Copperfield is going to pull back the curtain on the illusion and show that nothing was destroyed in the making of this Hollywood production."

Don't agree? Right. I didn't think that was your position.

And thanks to Mr. Shack's recent posting, I see that the following statement is malframed: "Could everything be faked?" A more precise wording would be: "Could all of the pictorial evidence be tainted in some manner?" To my shock and recent revelation, I now am coming on board with "yes".

P.S. Before you fly off the handle again in a posting in this thread aimed at me, check with Mr. Shack off-list. Your obtuse and science-challenge position isn't helping matters, and you clearly under-estimate my humble resolve. He might want you to abstain from rash actions against me that reflect badly on this forum, while he sees where the chips fall from my debunking request and the resulting discussion.

---

Herr der Elf : Thank you so much for your effort in scrutinizing images used by Dr. Wood

2012-02-22

by Herr der Elf February 22nd, 2012, 8:29 pm

Dear Makkonen,

Thank you so much for your effort in scrutinizing images used by Dr. Wood and finding areas of issues.

Makkonen wrote:

Why would anyone, let alone a firefighter, step straight into a fire? Speaking of which, it is a rather strange and nonsensical "ring" or "circle" of fire that hasn't spread despite the masses of papers(!) around. The picture is an obvious fabrication.

This above image was used to support the contention of Hutchison Effects: an erratic fire burning hot-spots here or there.

I suspect it is a fabrication as well, but we need to locate the cues of actual digital manipulation proving it as such.

Makkonen wrote:

Ah, James Nachtwey. What a convenient place to "photograph" SO SOON after the "disaster". In reality, a civilian _anybody_ should have no business whatsoever INSIDE DEVASTATED BUILDINGS FULL OF POSSIBLY HAZARDOUS DEBRIS, GASES, etc. Sorry for the caps lock, but this picture doesn't represent reality even as an "idea".

The above image was used to support the contention that no hot-spots were at the WTC. If you draw a perpendicular line from the "NY" in the caption to where it goes in the rubble, that is supposedly where satillite images showed an unquenchable hot-spot. The contention is that if there were a hot-spot, all of this water would be turned to steam and none of the firemen would be loutering about there. If the image is fake, the reality of the hot-spot remains possible.

If this image is fake, again we need to identify the cues where digital manipulation was deployed.

Makkonen wrote:

I've added an arrow to the "collapse"/"pulverization" image to draw attention to some strange stuff going on in there. The bizarre grey-blue(!) section is what caught my attention. That color blend isn't seen anywhere else in the picture; the shape cannot decide whether it's smoke or freshly pulverized material; there's a heavy "shadow" only on the other side of the section, just below the arrow. Overall, this jarring section is probably the result of some heavy-handed layering in PS. Also, I think I'm seeing some tiny "face" figures in the collapse powder-smoke-stuff, but that's to be expected - that was and is one of the trademarks of the WTC collapse animations/stills. A little bit of strange "fun" for the CGI teams, I guess...

I'm sorry. I'm not seeing anything amiss.

Perhaps others with more keen artifact snooping eyes could offer some opinions on what Makkonen points out and possibly other artifacts of digital manipulation.

---

Herr der Elf : Most astute observation, Mr. Shack.

2012-02-22

by Herr der Elf February 22nd, 2012, 8:30 pm

Herr der Elf wrote: For example, the satellite image with the large white smoke trail was used even when discussing with Dr. Jenkins to explain where content went, e.g., pulverized so fine that it went practically into orbit.

simonshack wrote: :lol: That one's new to me - the dust went practically "into orbit"?

I'm just repeating what Dr. Wood was saying to Dr. Jenkins and image he provided.

simonshack wrote:Humor aside, let me now expound what leads me to maintain my 'hard-line position', as you call it: that is, to assert - or if you prefer, 'to postulate' - that all the available imagery depicting the crucial 9/11 events (as well as the controlled, Ground Zero 'crime scene') is false. Now, before going any further, let us (hopefully) come to an agreement regarding the meaning of 'false' - and its logical/investigative implications - since you seem to nurture the notion that perhaps some image/footage of 9/11 might be legit/authentic/genuine/or as they say, 'kosher':

Herr der Elf wrote:What I am trying to achieve is more or less a grade on each and every image (still/video) on a scale definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that point in time.)

simonshack wrote:Good Heavens. I had to highlight in red your "each and every image (stll/video)" quote - lest you deny that you ever wrote such a thing!

No denial on my side, except that you missed the qualifying sentence.

Herr der Elf wrote:And to narrow the scope of the initial work even further, I suggest focusing on Dr. Wood's images.

simonshack wrote:Let me get this right: Even if there existed a 'scale/or grade' with which to 'gauge/or rate' the falseness of any given image, would you say that an image scoring a lower 'rate of falseness' puts it in some sort of 'possibly genuine' waiting list? I would say that to grant the benefit of doubt to any 9/11 image - at this advanced stage of our analyses/investigations - is an 'over-the-top' presumption of innocence which I doubt any fair judge would concede to any defendant.

Most astute observation, Mr. Shack. Most clever of those perpetrators. You've cracked the door in my thinking to consider that the probability is greater than I had imagined of all 9/11 imagery being digitally manipulated in some manner, however slight, before publication and release to the world. Could be as simple as inserting a water mark, or a boat with the square pixels of the insertion software, or bogus birds flying across the screen.

It is a very devious perpetrator back-up plan should any of the imagery make it into a court of law to prove anything. The capable defense attorney will convince the judge & jury that none of the images depict a moment of reality, so therefore no argument can be advanced on the shoulders of this evidence... except one. Our beloved corporate media was complicit in the cover-up. Being found guilty of this lesser charge won't rock their worlds too much. They change corporate names and logos and continue to milk profits of the media-addicted masses.

If the perpetrators had the wherewithal to stop normal investigative procedures such that even fire marshalls were complaining about the destruction of physical evidence, now it makes sense the extent that they would go to taint the pool of pictorial evidence. Tainting the image pool is by far the easier task.

simonshack wrote: Instead, there is a good old legal principle (in latin,"Falsis in unum, falsis in omnibus") which would ideally apply to our particular investigation. Let me quote 9/11 researcher "onebornfree", who explains this principle in simple words:

THE "FALSE IN ONE - FALSE IN ALL" LEGAL PRINCIPLE:

For those that do not know, there is a simple legal principle named "false in one false in all"[try "googling" that phrase], whereby a judge may instruct a trial jury that should they find that any part of a witness/entities testimony to be false then they have the incontestable right to discount all "evidence" provided by that person/entity.

Therefore, and according to that principle, should anyone find any one part of the government/media 911 story to be false, then it is perfectly acceptable for that person to then conclude that _all_ "evidence" supplied by the government/media and/or "witnesses", is either knowingly false, or simply to be distrusted, until definitively proven otherwise.
http://www.dailypaul.com/120138/deconstructing-the-grand-deception-by-simon-shack-december-31-2009

These rules certainly apply to a court of law. The April Gallop case with a Bush cousin on the bench refusing to recuse himself from the case demonstrates most handily how hard they have worked to corrupt the courts.

Which leaves us the court of public opinion.

In the court of public opinion, thinkers will recognize how they are being played in the purposeful tainting of pictorial evidence. Thinkers will still want a grade on each and every image (still/video) on a scale definitely manipulated (& here's where) to as-far-as-we-can-determinte not manipulated (and thus probably a real depiction of that point in time.)

They won't be satisfied with side-lining the pictorial evidence on a technicality. They'll want to know exactly where. Are the backgrounds somewhat true? Are the masks somewhat true? Are the overlays somewhattrue? For each image, which element if any is most likely to retain anything from reality.

And thinkers will use this to come into real courts through the side-door. The case they'll bring up will not be an April Gallop trying to prove that no plane hit the Pentagon; it will not be Dr. Wood trying to prove the unanswered massive energy questions.

No, the case will be that these same tainted images supposedly duped our leaders and caused knee-jerk over-reactions that led to illegal and immoral wars abroad.

---

Herr der Elf : Google: "Patricia Ondrovic"

2012-02-22

by Herr der Elf February 22nd, 2012, 8:30 pm

Herr der Elf wrote:"But to say that all of those vehicles were props or were staged? Testimony contradicts that."

Human wrote:What testimony? please post here transcripts of "testimony" pertaining to burnt cars "popping" ? off on particular street's...

Ask and ye shall receive. As but one example, consider the testimony of emergency medical technician Patricia Ondrovic.

Google: "Patricia Ondrovic"

Your googling efforts will be fruitful. One of the links will be this interview here:
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html

Dr. Wood's textbook has extracts from her official testimony that will probably be included in the google results.

---

nonhocapito : All I know about Judy Wood is that she does one very imbecile or malicious thing: draw unwarranted, fantastic conclusions from imagery that we have all the reasons to believe is fake.

2012-02-22

by nonhocapito February 22nd, 2012, 11:15 pm

Herr der Elf wrote:For someone who envisions that everything concerning 9/11 was fake, your imagination has evidently run out of steam if you can only ascribe one purpose to Dr. Wood. And oh, dear me. Her dasterdly purpose according to you cuts so quickly to the heart of what you champion.

Judy Wood means nothing to me. Her research does not interest me or ever helped me in any way. I have no interest whatsoever to debunk her claims or to disprove what she says only because you come around asking this forum to do so. All I know about Judy Wood is that she does one very imbecile or malicious thing: draw unwarranted, fantastic conclusions from imagery that we have all the reasons to believe is fake. That's enough for me. She ceases to exist except as a shill agent, until someone like you come around trying to still profit from this poor investment.

Herr der Elf wrote:How could the demolitions "look like traditional demolitions" when such visual cues being faked is exactly what this forum is about? What you personally think is obviously shaped by watching too much faking of things on television. It doesn't appear to have much science or physics to back it up.

You're not following. I am not saying that the demolitions looked like traditional ones because this is how they look in the faked videos. The demolitions in the videos look like nothing but fantasy. Besides, clearly no one among the general public was allowed to see the demolitions, in reality or video. I tend to believe that they were traditional demolitions because it is the easiest, simplest, most logic and most economical explanation at hand. And because of this, obviously the scenes of the collapse had to be replaced, like everything else, with fake imagery.

Herr der Elf wrote: FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner connect were pulverized. FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink. FACT: the amount of traditional explosives required to meet this energy requirement is massive and presents legitimate logistic nightmares. FACT: hot-spots burned under the rubble without Oxygen for many weeks. FACT: traditional explosives cannot account for the hot-spots. FACT: even untraditional nano-thermite cannot account for the hot-spots without the simple math applied to its burn-rate suggesting unreasonably massive overkill amounts of the material.

All these "FACTS" are complete bullshit.
How do you know "the concrete was pulverized"? Looking at fake pictures?
Logistic nightmare? What kind of issue is this? Even if it was a logistic nightmare (which I doubt, considering that the towers were most certainly empty and had been for a long while on 9/11) it doesn't mean it could not be solved. Several, several years were obviously spent taking care of this plan.
Hot spots? Where this information comes from? The mainstream media? The truthers? Are we allowed to laugh here?

Herr der Elf wrote:Given that science reflected through your thinking is now proven to be a major weakness of yours, I suggest you refrain from speculating erroneously about causes for the observed destruction and focus where your strengths lie in proving instance-after-instance of faking in the imagery. Take Dr. Wood down legitimately.

As I said, personally I don't give a shit about "taking down" Judy Wood or the bullshit you came to shovel around here. All I care for, as far as our exchange goes, is that this forum isn't polluted with disinfo.

---

simonshack : fully stand by the replies Nonhocapito has offered

2012-02-22

by simonshack February 22nd, 2012, 11:29 pm

Herr der Elf wrote:P.S. Before you fly off the handle again in a posting in this thread aimed at me, check with Mr. Shack off-list. Your obtuse and science-challenge position isn't helping matters, and you clearly under-estimate my humble resolve. He might want you to abstain from rash actions against me that reflect badly on this forum, while he sees where the chips fall from my debunking request and the resulting discussion.

Ok, Mr Elf

This paragraph of yours smells so much of crass divide-and-conquer tactics that I am going - from now on - to use tweezers to extract your real motives for coming here with your Judy Wood-centred discourse. Let me make it clear that I fully stand by the replies Nonhocapito has offered to you - and for you to call him 'obtuse and science-challenging' is frankly more than I can bear.

Let's see what 'scientific' methods you have to offer, Mr Elf: you stated that "Lots of clues not reliant on photos or video take traditional demolition techniques out of contention."

You then list a long series of "FACTS":

FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner connect were pulverized.

Really? What do you have to offer in support of this "FACT"?

FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink.

I do not understand this "FACT" at all - sorry.

FACT: the amount of traditional explosives required to meet this energy requirement is massive and presents legitimate logistic nightmares.

If you wish, I can link you to scores of videos showing steel-frame buildings being demolished effortlessly. They evidently presented no logistic nightmares - and are indeed performed all over the world on a regular basis.

FACT: hot-spots burned under the rubble without Oxygen for many weeks.

Again: What do you have to offer in support of this "FACT"?

FACT: traditional explosives cannot account for the hot-spots.

Same as above.

FACT: even untraditional nano-thermite cannot account for the hot-spots without the simple math applied to its burn-rate suggesting unreasonably massive overkill amounts of the material.

Again, what evidence do you have to back up the existence of these "hot-spots" ? Did you read about them in the news?

I can see where this is going, Mr Elf. You clearly wish to stir up an umpteenth, circular and pseudo-scientific discourse here on Cluesforum concerning the exact sort of explosives used to demolish the WTC COMPLEX. There are countless places to discuss such technicalities. This is not one of them. I will now suggest to you, as Nonhocapito did, that you go elsewhere (try "9/11 Architects & Enginners for Truth". Ask them to debunk Judy Wood. Have fun!).

I am also very disappointed to see you bring in the "David Copperfield - the towers are still there" crap talk. This is an all-time low of your 'career' as a 9/11 writer - and I think you should be ashamed for posting such inanities on this forum.


Re: TOASTED CARS
Regarding the toasted cars, Mr. Elf - you wrote:
"But to say that all of those vehicles were props or were staged? Testimony contradicts that."

So our forum member 'Human' rightly asked you:

Human wrote:What testimony? please post here transcripts of "testimony" pertaining to burnt cars "popping" ? off on particular street's, not that it makes any difference to me whatsoever but please enlighten me since you have used this word.

Mr. Elf, you responded by citing the "Patricia Ondrovic testimony". Have you verified that source in any way? Or do you just make up your "FACTS" and "CONTRADICTIONS" by reading newspaper reports? See, my research proceeds in a different way: I analyse the news reports - and verify/question their credibility using a trusty, old-fashioned empirical method: observation. As it is, I have long determined that the "toasted cars" meme was an integral part of the 9/11 "Hollywood made-for-TV movie".

Here is my WTC7 STUDY published on Youtube in January 2009 (and which, for some reason, has a paltry 7200 viewcount). Please pause this video at 1:44 - and observe what there is to observe: The burning WTC7, yes?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg

Then, unpause the video and watch the toasted cars presented by this CBS reporter. Now, please know that the WTC7 was NOT a white building. It was reddish/ brown. In fact, the very same shot of the chalk-white WTC7 is featured in the Naudet brothers "9/11" propaganda movie. The below gif loop (at right) is extracted directly from the high-resolution DVD of the Naudet movie - that I have purchased (I hope you won't argue once again - as you did with the white/black WTC smoke - that the WHITE WTC7 could be explained by any sort of optical artifact/phenomena ) :



Now, here is my logical process at work: if the CBS video (aired on TV) shows an impossibly WHITE WTC7 - what credibility have these toasted cars? Are they not also part of the 9/11, Made-for-TV "Hollywood" production?

---

---

Maat : impervious to any 'clue bat'

2012-02-23

by Maat February 23rd, 2012, 3:03 pm

Ah yes, my Cluey compadres this one has certainly shown its true colors in all their murky mindlessness,
flogging his phantom "Dr": — and quite impervious to any 'clue bat' from us, of course
(You can see where it spilled over from at that Truth & Shadows "mash-up" blog, trying to bury Simon's inconvenient facts there with the same long-winded fallacies)

What I said re the Kosior crap here last year also applies to this 'Herr Duh / El Nonce' circuitous clown who has also, typically, 'played the psychological double-bind of "you can't say it's fake if you haven't seen it all [read 'her' book]" BS for way too long.'

Unfortunately, Simon is in the wearisome and aggravating position of 'damned if you do/don't' with insidious trolls like this Elf of having to initially respond & refute their sophistry just to prevent anyone assuming 'silence/dismissal = consent/defeat'.

The problem is that this is exactly what all narcissists (sociopaths, conmen etc.) and pseudo intellectual trolls rely upon. Once they are acknowledged and engaged the bombardment of verbal diarrhea continues and will increase unless and until starved of fodder &/or blocked.

The only advantage in giving them enough rope is that they do inevitably prove their motives beyond all reasonable doubt to any observers capable of critical thinking.

So this wannabe cyber-herder disinfo artist, Herr 'Duh', has overplayed his hand and exposed his agenda, ad nauseam. It really makes no difference whether they are genuine idiots, trolls, shills or paid to be — the tell-tale signs and attempted/intended effects are always the same.

---

Herr der Elf : my gratitude for the assistance

2012-02-23

by Herr der Elf February 23rd, 2012, 3:08 pm

To the gracious participants of this clues forum,

I wish to express my gratitude for the assistance you have provided and for indulging me in my quest. Although I did not obtain the complete invalidation of the smaller subsets of Dr. Wood images that I gave in my challenge so that weaknesses in her theories could be exploited, I guess I obtained what could be expected on short notice.

I can see where this thread is going. Even though I am a champion of most of the research of Mr. Shack and company, I seemed to have struck a nerve.

Evidentally, if I have to reference any imagery whatsoever to make a point, you are going to pull the ploy "all imagery is faked, so you can't use it to prove squat."

You might have a convincing argument with me to say "all imagery is tainted", because it would be something both easy to deploy and easy to verify by discovering as much as one out-of-place digital artifact in each image/video. But no, you say "all imagery is faked," and with that you stretch the premise to its breaking point.

Worse than that is that you create a vacuum and have nothing credible to fill it with. If the WTC wasn't destroyed in a manner parallel but not coincident to what we were led to believe through tainted images, then the vacuum becomes how the WTC was destroyed that would be consistent with the observations of all witnesses as well as material evidence from the scene. Whereas the WTC area was evacuated to a large extent, observers weren't pushed so far back that they couldn't see or hear anything.

Herr der Elf wrote:FACT: the vast majority of the concrete and inner content were pulverized.

simonshack wrote: Really? What do you have to offer in support of this "FACT"?

nonhocapito wrote:How do you know "the concrete was pulverized"? Looking at fake pictures?

The starting point for this are tons of images showing the pulverized concrete dust all over Manhattan that you haven't proved are tainted, let alone "faked."

To this, we add the recollections of anybody who spent any time at Ground Zero or flying around it in a helicopter. Has any such observer ever disputed the images of the aftermath as not being what they saw? Even if some image editor took some liberty with some flag poles or Coke trucks or heroic firemen for better framing in a publication, has anyone from Ground Zero ever disputed the "essential" reality (not the technical pixel reality) of the destruction that the images depicted?

No.

The bar is now raised for your forum. Not only do you have to prove each specific 9/11 image as "fake," you have to provide the testimony of observers who will dispute what the image depicted as not being the "essential" reality.

Thus, it remains a fact that the pulverized concrete depicted in images from Ground Zero and all over Manhattan represent the "essential" truth and can't be brushed away.

Herr der Elf wrote:FACT: pulverization is a massive energy sink.

simonshack wrote:I do not understand this "FACT" at all - sorry.

Go out to your back concrete patio with a sledge hammer. It is anyone's guess how many swings it will take for you to crack it and break it into chunks that two strong men could hoist into a wheelbarrel. Consider this energy quantity E1. If you attack the concrete with a powered jackhammer, you could probably get those chunks down smaller than a fist. Consider this energy quantity E2, whereby the "greater than" inequality E2 > E1 applies. If you truck these chunks to a cement plant, their powered machinery could grind this down even further into the size pieces useful for new cement and even dust. Consider this energy quantity E3, whereby the "much greater than" inequality E3 >> E2 > E1 applies.

nonhocapito wrote:Logistic nightmare? What kind of issue is this? Even if it was a logistic nightmare (which I doubt, considering that the towers were most certainly empty and had been for a long while on 9/11) it doesn't mean it could not be solved. Several, several years were obviously spent taking care of this plan.

As you increase the energy requirements to account for the massive energy sink suggested by the observable evidence, you increase the amount of whatever conventional or unconventional explosives and with it the logistics of getting it into the building and wired into place. How many days did the bomb sniffing dogs take for their pre-9/11 holiday? I don't disagree that several years were spent in the planning, but actual boots-on-the-ground implementation of the final features was performed on a much shorter time schedule.

NIST legitimately debunked conventional explosives due to the insufficient decibel levels recorded and observed. They can further be debunked by the duration and nature of under-rubble hot-spots not requiring oxygen and smoldering for many weeks, if the logistics math calculated on quantities required for pulverization didn't already present unrealistic, massive quantities and compounded operational risks.

Given the above, I don't know why you two have both actively championed conventional explosives (lamely) at the derision of those who say that weapons of great energy exist, were accessible, and would be deployed at lower risk and lower logistics on 9/11...

[* palm forcefully against forehead *]

No sense me continuing with this line of thought here. Those interested can seek me out in cyberspace.

I want to once again express my gratitude for the commentary expended on my behalf. I'll leave you to discuss amongst yourselves my alleged shill level and agenda, and apologize that it may distract the discussion from its supposed prime objective. Have a great day!

P.S. Dear Maat. Loved your assessment of me. Keep up the good work.

---

simonshack : characterize our entire 9/11 research as some sort of sinister 'ploy'.

2012-02-23

by simonshack February 23rd, 2012, 6:33 pm

Herr der Elf wrote:I can see where this thread is going.

Tut,tut, Mr Elf - I beat you to that line a few posts ago, you copycat you!

And my predictions were evidently confirmed, as I read this line of yours :

Herr der Elf wrote:I seemed to have struck a nerve. Evidentally, if I have to reference any imagery whatsoever to make a point, you are going to pull the ploy "all imagery is faked, so you can't use it to prove squat."

'Evidentally' (as you say), the nerve you struck is located in your own mouth - and you now finally spat out the true objective of your visit to this gracious forum: to ultimately characterize our entire 9/11 research (which, of course, focuses on the news media's crucial role in the scam) as some sort of sinister 'ploy'. Your initial, seemingly humble attitude (repeatedly describing yourself as the easily duped sort) clearly paved the way for this cheap 'cliffhanger finale'.

As a self-professed "champion of most of the research of Mr. Shack and company", it seems to me that you either:
1: Have a poor understanding of it. (And that's being quite kind with you.)
2: Say so to sound friendly - only to get a foot in the door and attempt a few (lame) backstabs at it.

Herr der Elf wrote:Even if some image editor took some liberty with some flag poles or Coke trucks or heroic firemen for better framing in a publication, (...)

I was expecting that one from you - sooner or later: yeah, we're all senselessly wasting our time here - picking on innocent, cosmetic editing "for better framing in publications". Rrright ! Thanks for the hearty laugh.

But the most alarming red flag as to your real agenda, Mr. Elf, got deployed when I read these lines of yours:

Herr der Elf wrote: Our beloved corporate media was complicit in the cover-up. Being found guilty of this lesser charge won't rock their worlds too much. They change corporate names and logos and continue to milk profits of the media-addicted masses.

A friendly reminder for you: they also sack inept, dopey employees/gatekeepers before they start becoming a liability for their damage control operations.

Herr der Elf wrote:No sense me continuing with this line of thought here.

Well said - you beat me to that line, Herr Eleven. Goodbye now.

---

nonhocapito : the whole truther repertoire

2012-02-23

by nonhocapito February 23rd, 2012, 7:08 pm

thank you for pulling the plug Simon! Reading Elf's posts was starting to feel like reading a discussion from 6 or 7 years ago. Frankly exhausting. "People flying in the helicopters" "the observable evidence" "energy sink" "pulverized concrete" "nano-thermite"... the whole truther repertoire... personally I feel like having left those categories and ideas behind light years ago... who wants to go back?

---

Maxwell C. Bridges : Since starting this email, looks like I've been banned.

2012-02-23

Dear Mr. Shack,

I wrote:

"Evidentally, if I have to reference any imagery whatsoever to make a point, you are going to pull the ploy 'all imagery is faked, so you can't use it to prove squat.'"
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&start=255#p2365665

You responded:

"[T]he true objective of your visit to this gracious forum: to ultimately characterize our entire 9/11 research (which, of course, focuses on the news media's crucial role in the scam) as some sort of sinister 'ploy'."
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&start=255#p2365676

Hmmm. "Ploy" or "play", it was a toss-up when I originally wrote it. I was applying "ploy" to your and nonhocapito's tactics in the forum.

Were that I had a larger agenda in visiting your forum. I was just kind of letting the chips fall where they may. I was truly hoping that images bolstering Dr. Wood would be more thoroughly reviewed for signs of being tainted.

You've got the Clues home court advantage so can spin my wording anyway you want, but that doesn't make it true.

Since starting this email, looks like I've been banned. Seemed rather unnecessary seeing how I was taking my leave, and now makes it difficult to subscribe to other threads of interest now that I've figured out you have to post something (nice) to be notified. Whatever happened to my requested limited immunity? Sure, it expired, but banning shouldn't take effect unless I transgress again after the expiration. So little do you value the research on your forum that you make it so difficult to subscribe. Phil Jayhan has the same failings in administering his forum.

Did I really characterize your entire 9/11 research as some sort of sinister ploy? Shoot, that's the same tactic that Phil Jayhan used against both you and CIT research. Take the comments aimed at an individual and misapply them to a group in feigned outrage.

I don't think my klutzy "ploy" phrasing took anything away from the clues forum's focus on the news media's crucial role in the scam.

As for my poor understanding of the research of the research you've done, it is at least sufficient to identify your deficiencies that start with science & math and extend into your lack of objectivity. Combine that with your inaccurate black-and-white language: "All 9/11 imagery is faked." Fake is such a heavy word. Why didn't you use the word "tainted" which could be more easily defended and then reserved "fake" for the instances where it clearly applies? Why do you shoot your research in the foot with "all" that acts like a "dare-me" statement to have you proven wrong?

You've got a vacuum that you can't fill in explaining the outcome of the WTC once all imagery is wiped clean from the table as being inadmissible "fakes" (the true nefarious agenda of September Clues, no?) You stammer about: "it was a conventional demolition." One would think that you've had plenty of opportunities to explore all the evidence that contradicts this and that isn't pictures. One would think that you'd come to better conclusions and explore how other teams' efforts offer mutual support.

You've missed the fact that thousands of observers saw both the aftermath reality & the images of the same and have not disputed the "essential" reality of what was depicted, further clubbing the harshness of the word "fake."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Well, I suppose if you're going to misapply my characterization of your personal actions to your research into media duplicity, then going forward, I may have to run with that. I was resisting believing the labels that others applied to you, your forum, and aspects of your research. Now it appears they have been vindicated. Don't worry, because I'm still on the lookout for nuggets for truth contained therein; I'll just be more wary of your disinformation dross.

Don't make yourself a stranger on Truth & Shadows.

Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges

---

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.