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.