Dear Mr. NonHocapito,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.
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.
Quite right: The crucial idea is that everything could be faked.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.
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."
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.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:
http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#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.
No, everything could not be faked.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?
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.