The Effect of Zoom and Viewing Angle

Notes for Dynamic Duo - October 29 2008.



1. So what?

2. Steven Jones "Barium Riddle" solved.

Mushroom Cloud

3. LInk to Nuclear Demolition Site.

Link to Nuclear Demolition Paper - William Tahil.

4. September Clues 9

5. Why Me?

6. Paul is Dead?

Hoaxing the Hoaxers

Back in December 2007, Judy Wood began integrating her DEW theory with the Hutchison Effect. I knew Hutchison was a fraud, having seen his silly upside down videos years before. Could Dr. Wood actually believe Hutchison? 

To measure whether or not Dr. Wood actually believes in the Hutchison Effect, I devised a hoax. I created several replications of the Hutchison "falling up" trick. I hung a toy house upside down, made objects wiggle around with hidden magnets, then let them fall down, appearing to fall up. This is exactly what Hutchison did in several of his videos. 

Then I emailed Dr. Wood and her crew announcing I was going to attempt to duplicate the H-Effect. I claimed to have gotten a Tesla Coil on ebay. After a few days, I announced that I had duplicated the levitation. I posted my videos. 

The silence was deafening. I got no response at all from Dr. Wood, a person I had received over 100 emails from, and had at least 8 long phone conversations with. I had spent 3 days at her attorney's house in Connecticut interviewing her and the rest of her crew. 

A scientist who actually believed in the H-Effect would have been overcome with curiosity. I had my answer. So, I announced my hoax within 1 week. 

It's not as though Judy won't mention other people replicating the H-Effect. On her website, Judy links to an article claiming someone at York University duplicated the effect. Hutchison himself has posted a truly hilarious video by "J.L. Naudin" that he says also replicated the H Effect.

Gee, do you think maybe the toy is swinging around on a thread?

LOL.

 

The Real Deal on Molten Metal

Understanding the limitations of video compositing helps solve another riddle

“Molten metal, flowing and in pools”. This was the eye-catching section heading in Steven Jones’ famous “Why Indeed” article that put the 9/11 Truth Movement on the map in 2005. “Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster?” asked Jones, in an apparent rhetorical question.

Who denies it? Judy Wood denies it. Wood points out a number of problems with Jones’ molten metal evidence. This photo was used in versions of Jones’ paper with the caption “Workers evidently peering into the hot core”.




It turned out that this version of the photo had had the color balance shifted. The original photo looked more like this:





The workers are actually gathered around a searchlight.

Wood makes a big deal out of the lack of steam explosions. Water was sprayed at ground zero continually. Spraying water on molten metal will cause the water to boil rapidly, turning to steam and rapidly expanding in volume by up to 1600 times. She reminds us of the very dramatic steam explosion in New York City in 2007. If there was molten metal, why does the water not turn to steam?

And then there is this image, from NIST:



NIST admits in their documentation that the “intensity levels” were boosted. But Wood points out a worse problem – the molten metal is flowing from the wrong window! I suspect NIST photoshopped the image, specifically so that it would be discredited. How devious!

What’s the truth here? As with (no) flying objects, an understanding of the limitations of video compositing will help give us the answer. ABC news showed us a live, unstable video of yellow-hot molten metal flowing out of the south tower, just before it blew up. It is not possible to composite a flow of molten metal onto an unstable shot in real time. This is absolutely a real event, without doubt.



It is surely impossible for an office fire to heat anything up to yellow hot, which is around 1800 degrees F. The best explanation is that an incendiary, like thermate, was used to melt floor trusses. This would cause floors to sag, pulling inwards on the perimeter columns. This would be blamed on the super-hot fires, and was a key element in the NIST collapse initiation theory.

Showing that flow of molten metal was one of the 3 big mistakes made by the perps on 9/11 (the other 2 were Chopper 5 and the premature announcement of WTC7). We were not supposed to see molten metal. This was a big problem. There is absolutely no innocent explanation for molten iron or steel.

The fact that they showed it on the news was the only reason we ever heard one word about molten metal.

The task of destroying the case for molten metal was given to Steven Jones and Judy Wood. Their first step was to join the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and begin arguing about whether aluminum glows when it is heated. Of course it does, and Judy was right. This would later pave the way for the official story to claim that the flowing substance was molten aluminum, from the airplane.

Jones began his disinfo by overstating the case for molten metal – “Flowing and in Pools”. No doubt there were pools of molten metal, but we surely don’t have any pictures of it. Instead Jones relied on statements by insiders, like Keith Eaton and Mark Loizeaux. Jones also brought dubious pictures, like the “hot core” flashlight shot, and the NIST “intensity levels adjusted” wrong window shot.

Then Jones proceeded to study dust samples and discover tiny iron microsphere. When iron is melted, the liquid can form tiny droplets that harden into a spherical shape. Absent melting temperatures, iron does not form microspheres.

However, supporters of the official story have pointed out that these tiny amounts of liquid iron could have originated innocently, for example by cutting torches used in the clean-up.

Jones eventually filed a “Request for Corrections” to the NIST report, but there was not one word on molten metal in the document. How very, very odd.

Judy Wood claims there was no molten metal at all on 9/11. I presented to her my idea that incendiaries may have been used to melt floor trusses. She responded by calling me on the phone and trying to convince me that the news videos must have been faked. This is impossible, as I’ve explained.

It was very, VERY important for Dr. Wood that there be no molten metal. Why? Using incendiaries to melt floor trusses would not itself rule out her DEW theory. I concluded that day, in December of 2007, that Dr. Wood was acting to rehabilitate the official story, by helping to destroy the case for molten metal.

Confusion is very important in any disinformation campaign. The next step was to falsly marry together the idea of molten metal, and the “fuming” that took place at ground zero for over 100 days, and may not have completely subsided even now. Absent any specific comments, we are left to assume that Steve Jones’ theory is that the fuming is aluminum oxide residue from an ongoing thermate reaction. It appears impossible that such a reaction could continue for even a fraction of that time. Further, as Dr. Wood has correctly pointed out, spraying water on molten metal would likely cause a steam explosion. 

But . . . the molten metal may be unrelated to the fuming. Or they may be related only indirectly.  I think the demolition was nuclear, and that the fuming is an ongoing reaction, like the "China Syndrome". 

There was molten metal on 9/11. We see it flowing in the news video. Neither Dr. Jones nor Dr. Wood appear the least bit interested in generating a viable theory of 9/11. Given the high concentrations of strontium and barium in the dust, a nuclear reaction appears to be the best candidate to explain the disintegration of the towers. Given the inward pulling of the perimeter, melting floor trusses appears to be the motivation for using some incendiary prior to the main demolition.

Judy Wood also makes a big deal out of claiming that there was no significant heat produced by the demolitions. In closing, I ask all to please view the following video of the WTC1 demolition. Note the large expanding mushroom cloud that pushes upwards and outwards, even blooming to the right. To the right in this video is west, and that would be against the wind. There is but one explanation for a cloud that behaves this way, and that is an extraordinary heat energy input.

Conversation with Truth Sleuth

Last night I had a conversation with Truth Sleuth (Markus Allen). We discussed other researchers, mostly. I explained the "Shifting Bridge" illusion, and why we know that the 9/11 news videos are not completely animated.

MP3 file is here.

"Fullflav" Attempts a Hit Piece

Someone posting as "fullflavormenthol" on JREF claims to be a video expert, and has taken a stab at trying to review my treatise. Fullflav is just another disinfo clown trying to confuse the issues with lies and nonsense. 

Here's his pathetic attempt, with my comments.

Well honestly the problem with Ace Baker's treatise is that it isn't well thought out, or based upon a real working knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

1.) Ace believes that the functions of any video compositing program can be applied to any other compositing program, this isn't really true at all. After Effects is not Apple Motion is not New Tek Tricaster is not Avid.

Lie. I never said that, and I don't believe it. I claim that Avid was used for the live composites. Drawing clear distinctions between what is possible live and what is only possible with editing time, is crucial to solving 9/11.

2.) His logic isn't consistent, especially when trying to defend the footage as being stable enough to live composite on. He gets into issues about stabilizing the footage, and then tries to claim that by unstabilizing the footage you could tell if the plane moves strangely. It don't know, personally I could not follow what he was getting at, because it makes no logical sense from a video compositing special effects perspective. Especially given that he was attempting to claim that a gyro stabilizer would already make it stabile.

My logic is perfectly consistent. A real airplane has smooth motion. Camera motion makes smooth motion appear shaky. Stabilizing footage removes camera motion, thus making the apparently shaky motion of a real airplane look smooth again. 

Laying a smooth motion fake airplane into a shaky shot doesn't work, because you would have no camera motion on the airplane. You could demonstrate this by stabilizing the footage, and comparing the motion of the airplane before and after. The motion of a real airplane must become more stable after stabilizing the shot. If the opposite occurs, there is a problem.

A gyro-stabilizer DOES make a helicopter shot very stable, that is the point. It works very well. I still claim that the Chopper 5 shot was SLIGHTLY unstable, measurably so. But it is subtle, and overall there are only tiny imperfections in stability of the Chopper 5 shot. If Chopper 5 was wildly unstable, you could easily demonstrate it, by stabilizing the footage, and comparing before and after. 

3.) He doesn't understand the programs in question. I mean this is outside his "treatise", but when I posted still images of my motion tracking of the footage; Ace argued that I had attempted to stabilize the footage. Ace had no idea that in After Effects motion tracking and stabilization work from the same engine. He has access to this program, and doesn't really understand this. His concept of motion tracking is drawing an outline over something, well this isn't really motion tracking. Basically he is tracing a shape, and calling it an analysis. Where as I would simply tell the program to lock in on an object and track its motion through the video. Ace doesn't understand the programs he is using for an analysis beyond a very superficial, "look what effect I can create" stance.

I'm perfectly aware of how motion tracking in After Effects works, and I use it. The tracker in Motion works better in a lot of situations, but it's basically the same thing . You select a certain region of picture to track, and the software look for the same pattern of pixels on subsequent frames.  FullFlav posted some still images showing he had attempted to track the motion of the towers. That's what you do when you are trying to stabilize the footage. 

Fullflav never posted his stabilized video, or all his frames, so we really don't know what he has actually trying to do. 

Another technique that can be used to analyze motion is keyframing. It involves drawing an outline of the airplane, then animating the motion of the outline. You place one keyframe at the beginning of the airplane motion, and one keyframe at the end. Then the software will make the outline travel the exact same distance in each frame.

If the motion of the airplane is smooth, then the outline can be made to follow the airplane perfectly. If not, then not. The test then, is to see whether the motion of the airplane is smooth on the raw version, and whether it is smooth on the stabilized version. 

Fullflav claims to not be able to understand this. Maybe he really can't, I don't know.

4.) He clearly doesn't understand that a gyrostabilizer on a helicopter doesn't make the footage completely stable. It merely means that is doesn't jitter, and that doesn't mean that small bumps and movements are not seen in the final footage.

If there are small bumps and movements in the final footage, significant enough to affect live compositing, then you could easily demonstrate that, using the technique I have just described.

5.) He obviously is not familiar with the knowledge base of many people within the broadcast industry. It is not uncommon for people to be a camera operator and know how to use video editing systems. This is because most colleges that teach broadcasting require their students to know these things, and people within the industry will learn as much as they can to get the best jobs.

Fullflav  is referring to the fact that Kai Simonsen, camera op on Chopper 5, is an expert in compositing. Another poster on JREF questioned that fact, and said Simonsen was "just a reporter".

6.) He uses the technical specs of current technology and software to justify what could have been done back then. He claimed that the chopper 5 footage wasn't low quality by linking to the technical specifications of the current model of the Flir camera that is a HD version. We don't how old the one used on Chopper 5 was, and he never presented that information. He links in his "treatise" to the current specs of the Avid Symphony.

Avid Symphony was available in 2001. The camera in question is a FLIR Ultra Media II.

So this is my review of this work of his. The main flaw is that Ace has a conclusion and simply manufactures the evidence to attempt to back it up, and he simply ignores and publicly attacks those that prove him wrong. His argument style is similar to the kid on youtube that well proven wrong will still claim victory and talk about pwning you in front of everybody.

Lie. I have "manufactured" no evidence. 

My review of this thread...I don't like being lied to. I initially found myself here under the impression that someone who was neutral simply wanted to know opinions on Ace Baker's work. Quickly I found that I was at first arguing with a constant..."well according to Ace." By half way through it became very obvious I was arguing with Ace Baker.

Go ahead, try arguing with me. It's going to be quite difficult for you, because I'm right. 

Dave "Strawman" Rogers

Since Steve Wright left the debate in shame at having been caught out in a series of provable lies, Dave Rogers on JREF is about the only one left willing to attempt debate on the 9/11 video composites. Having been banned from JREF more than a year ago, I was using a sock-puppet "Steven Lupo Grossi" to post. JREF have now banned Steven. 

Here's Dave Rogers' latest, a typical mish-mosh of selective attributes mixed with strawman fabrications. My comments are in between. 

There's two minor points that strike me about Ace's scenario, that may be a bit of a sticking point. One of them has been mentioned here, but the other has only just occurred to me.

His claim, in so far as I can reconstruct a coherent claim from the rather backward way he arranges his arguments, is that:

Originally the composited video was not originally supposed to show any debris emerging from the face of WTC2 opposite the impact face.

Rogers means none of the composites were supposed to show the nose of the airplane emerging from the back of the tower, the way Chopper 5 did.

In order to make it easier to remove the composited image at the right moment the airliner footage was slowed down to quarter-speed after it passed the expected location of the right hand side of the tower.

That's basically right. You wouldn't want to just have the airplane suddenly disappear or suddenly stop. You could easily make the airplane layer do that, of course. But you wouldn't know precisely when (which video frame) the airplane was going to disappear across the edge of the tower. In compositing, it is standard practice to have extra frames of video on both ends of an inserted shot. These are known as "handles".

In the test shots, the position of the towers could be known, and you would figure to be able to duplicate that within about 20 pixels accuracy or so. Beginning where you figured the airplane would be hidden, you would have the airplane motion slow down, appearing to decelerate, then stop before exiting the tower.  This would give you a much greater margin of error. If any of the "deceleration" occurred while the tail of the plane was still visible, that would be explained according to Newton's laws. As it turned out, no such deceleration was observed.

Someone didn't press the stop button quickly enough, so the nose of the airliner was seen emerging from the left hand side of the tower on the Chopper 5 footage.

Evidently the towers were a bit further to the right than planned in the test shot. There is no deceleration measured on entry, and the nose of the airplane image pops out the back side of the mask, now going much slower.

The signal on both Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 footage was quickly interrupted so as to hide the absence of any emerging debris from Chopper 7.

No, the Chopper 7 footage appears uninterrupted, and I've explained this repeatedly to Dave, and he can easily view this himself. Besides the Chopper 5 blackout, there is a blackout in CNN's live coverage, which was carrying a feed from Chopper 7, but dissolving from that into a different camera shot at the time.

I've never said they were "hiding the absence of any emerging debris". Chopper 5 was trying to hide the fact that they let the nose of the airplane slip out the back. Other channels were prepared to switch to different feeds, and/or go to black to hide any possible errors. CNN did both.

All remaining videotapes showing the far side of WTC2 from the impact were hurriedly retouched to show debris emerging from the point where the nose of the airplane on the composited video was seen.

Some of the subsequent videos simply had that part edited out. 

The 2nd and 3rd generation videos came out in the days and weeks following 9/11. They are inconsistent with one another. 2nd generation shots like Gamma Press show an airplane nose coming out. After it was discovered there was no exit hole, 3rd generation videos like Naudet show dust.

Point number one is one of causality. The Chopper 7 video was interrupted before the debris emerged, and therefore before the operator error (in Ace's theory) that resulted in the apparent emergence of the nose of the airliner. How did the operator who interrupted the Chopper 7 feed know that the compositing of the Chopper 5 feed was about to be interrupted too late? 

Strwaman, already answered.

Which feed was actually showing live as Flight 175 hit the tower?

None of them. No live shot showed an airplane hitting anything. How many times must I repeat this?

If it was only Chopper 5, there was no need to show Chopper 7, just hold it back and release it a few days later suitably doctored. If it was only Chopper 7, there was even less need to show Chopper 5; just cut off a few frames earlier, leaving no need to alter all the other videos. And if it was both on different stations, then Ace's theory requires a violation of causality. There is no possible scenario for the coincidence between the cutoffs of Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 feed interruptions that makes a shred of sense, other than just that is was a coincidence.

Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 were the two live shots. They planned to show them both, and there was no way to "hold them back".

Point number two is that the slowed videotape hypothesis makes no sense.It's not video tape, it's digital video.I've already touched on this, in that slowing down the airliner after it passes the tower edge is a stupid way to try to make it easier to stop the compositing at the right moment. 

Given the need for handles, and a desire to simulate some slowing of the airplane on entry, it was the best solution.

The big question, though, is: What was supposed to happen, and how does it make sense in this scenario? 

Answered.

Was the video feed supposed to switch abruptly back to a genuine live feed? Unlikely, because the sky would abruptly chance colour. 

I think Dave meant, "the sky would abruptly change colour". And no it would not. Where the hell does he get that idea? The airplane layer is done playing, and the live camera shot is still there. We have two layers of the camera shot, one with the sky transparent, one normal. It is impossible to distinguish between that and the underlying shot.

Was the airplane video supposed to freeze-frame when the airplane had passed behind the tower? 

Answered. It was supposed to slow down and stop/disappear.

If so, why not simply do so in advance, using a video which simply replicated all the frames after the airliner had passed the tower edge with a single frame in which the airliner was hidden? 

Answered. 

It would have been trivially simple to construct such a video - or, nearly as simply, to construct one where the airliner is clipped off the images along a line down the centre of the tower - leaving no possibility of the error Ace claims occurred. 

That is not possible. It is not possible to know in real-time where the center of the tower is. That would require motion tracking the tower in real time. 

Yet, instead of making up a suitable video ahead of time, Ace wants us to believe that the conspirators let all their plans stand or fall on the ability of one technician to press the right button within a second or so of the right moment, and that the conspiracy is revealed because he forgot to do it.

Having finished his setting up his  strawman, Rogers proceeds to attack it. 

It's a classic piece of conspiracist logic. The planners had to be at the same time devilishly clever enough to understand that hundreds of thousands of people would honestly believe they'd seen a real plane hit WTC2 because they were told on TV that they must have seen it, technically able enough to perform a feat of real-time video compositing far beyond anything that had ever even been attempted before, and yet stupid enough to leave the split-second timing required to Joe Schmoe down in the video suite, who forgot to press the big red button at exactly the right moment.

No, I'm quite sure they left the timing to Joe Schmoe in the helicopter, and that would be Kai Simonsen on Chopper 5. 

Funnily enough, the parts where the conspirators are required to be fiendishly clever are always the parts the conspiracist can simply handwave away. And yet it turns out that the parts where the conspiracist needs a detailed explanation of the sequence of events are always the parts where the conspirators are required to be unable to formulate a coherent plan. Almost as if the fault were not in the hypothetical conspirators, but in the people formulating the hypotheses.

Dave

I have detailed the plan that must have been implemented. The fact that Dave Rogers needs to so completely misstate it, speaks volumes. 

What Rule of Law?

So –called “Rule of Law” is theoretically impossible in the presence of a central government. Let us begin with definitions.

Rule of Law means that no one is above the law. It means a body of law that has two properties:

1. The law applies equally to everyone
2. The law constrains the rulers, as well as the ruled.

John Adams, in drafting the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, envisioned “ . . .a government of laws, not of men”. Can a government actually embody Rule of Law? Consider the definition of a government:

Government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation.

19th century economist John C. Calhoun was the first to point out a fundamental fact about taxation: Imposing any sort of tax automatically creates two distinct classes of citizens – net tax payers, and net tax consumers. No matter what sort of tax it is – income tax, sales tax, property tax, death tax, or any other – there will be one group of people who, on balance, pay the tax, and another group who, on balance, consume the benefit of the tax.

All government workers, for example, derive their subsistence solely from taxes. Any tax paid by these people is a complete statistical fiction. Government salaries come out of the general fund. Earning a government salary of $100,000 while paying $25,000 in tax is exactly the same as earning $75,000 and paying no tax. Government officials, bureaucrats, government contractors, military personnel, many “non-profit” organizations and others qualify as net tax consumers. All are in a fundamentally antagonistic position against the taxpayers.

We could imagine a system in which taxes and government spending were somehow “fair”, that is everyone received benefits in exact proportion to the tax they paid. But then what a colossal waste of effort the whole process would be! Collecting taxes and creating government spending programs, just so that everyone could end up right where they were to begin with?! Absurd. No, the entire point of taxation is to forcibly take wealth away from some and give it to others.

Taxing and spending cannot possibly apply equally to everyone. Taxes must be collected. The United States Constitution authorizes Congress to “lay and collect” taxes. There must be a special class of citizens called “tax collectors” who are empowered to take money from others, using force if need be. How then can the law apply equally to the tax collector as to the taxpayer? It cannot.

Now consider the government’s monopoly of jurisdiction. This means that whenever two parties have a dispute, the government is the final decision-maker about who wins and who loses. Most importantly, this includes disputes involving the government itself. Obviously the government will tend to find in its own favor. It’s hardly possible that any body of law could be applied equally to all people, when one group of people (the government) can be both litigant and judge.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, in his lecture “Prospects for a 2nd American Revolution”, warns:

“Rather than a protector and a judge, a monopolist will increasingly become a protection racketeer, a destroyer and invader of the people and property he was supposed to protect, as well as a war-monger and an imperialist". 

                                -Hans-Hermann Hoppe

What about “Checks and Balances”? Only a competitive free market can provide real checks and balances. Customers reward good service and punish bad with their purchasing decisions. What mechanism exists to check and balance the government monopoly? None that I can see.

The famous “Separation of Powers” is a non-starter. On paper, government power is divided into three branches, “Executive”, “Legislative” and “Judicial”. So what? This is simply division of labor. Legislators write laws, courts interpret them, and executives enforce them. These people and these agencies typically share a set a mutual self-interest.

Suppose the issue is whether or not to raise taxes. All of the people in all three branches of government derive all of their income from taxation. We could predict that legislators would pass laws raising taxes, executives would sign such laws, and judges would interpret such laws as being Constitutional. In practice, this is what has happened. Government revenue in the U.S. is at an all time high after more than two centuries of “checks and balances”.

The same goes for expansion of government power in general. All three branches of government are in favor of it. Operating under a Constitution that allegedly places limits on power, the U.S. government has involved itself in virtually every aspect of private affairs, virtually every industry, and established permanent military bases in almost every corner of the globe.

Minarchist libertarians are fond of advocating a return to strict Constitutional limits on power. What limits? I’ve just had a fresh read of the U.S. Constitution. I’m inclined to agree with Robert LeFevre, that it was designed as an instrument of limit-less power. Lay and collect taxes? Promote general welfare? Provide for common defense? Ensure domestic tranquility? Regulate interstate commerce? Go into debt? Declare war? Where on Earth is any limitation? I see none, but the point is moot. Either the framers intended an all powerful government in the first place, or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then their Constitution was an epic failure at keeping the government reigned in.

Would a different Constitution be better? I think not, and this is my point. It is fundamentally impossible to devise a single set of laws that constrain government officials as well as the general citizenry. Government officials always play by a different set of rules. Always. They must, otherwise there is no taxation, no judicial monopoly, no government, as currently understood.

And so, for centuries, we have seen the predictable results play out:

• Government passes laws against theft, then exempts itself and calls it “taxation”.

• Government passes laws against mass murder, then exempts itself and calls it “foreign policy”.

• Government passes laws against counterfeiting, then exempts itself and calls it “monetary policy”.

• Government passes laws against slavery, then exempts itself and calls it “conscription”.

• Government passes laws against eavesdropping, then exempts itself and calls it “counter-terrorism”.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Rule of Law can only exist in a free market, in the absence of a central government. Competing agencies will deliver a much better quality of justice and defense services, for the same economic reasons that competition provides better quality of everything. Customers buy only what they choose. Producers who provide good products and services at a good price are rewarded with profit. Producers who do a bad job, suffer losses. 

Read “Man, Economy and State” by Murray Rothbard, available for free on the web. Building upon Ludwig von Mises’ “Human Action”, Rothbard not only gives a complete theory of the unhampered free market, but goes on to deliver a complete economic theory of the State. Rothbard and the rest of the Austrian school of economics have given a rich literature proving the viability of the free market to deliver all goods and services, including protection, defense, and dispute resolution.

Abolish your government. According to the Declaration of Independence, it is not only your right, it is your duty to abolish your government when it has become destructive of your rights. Abolishing government begins between your ears. Stop believing in it. Start understanding it for what it is: An institutionalized criminal gang.

Read “No Treason – The Constitution of No Authority” by Lysander Spooner. In the mid-19th century, Spooner advanced an iron-clad argument. The Constitution appears to be a contract. It simply does not apply to anyone who did not sign it. Did you sign it? Neither did I. The “founders” of the United States had no more right to declare you a “citizen” and oblige you to pay tribute and fight wars than does your next door neighbor.

While there is broad disagreement about what the size and scope of government should be, statists unanimously agree that at minimum, society requires a government to provide a system of justice and protection. But government cannot do this, even in theory. Justice and protection require Rule of Law, and Rule of Law is impossible under government.

A second American revolution is due. What form it should take is a great question. I suggest contemplating mass secession into independent towns, neighborhoods, and individuals. This does not mean abandoning society, quite the opposite. Your government is not your society, it is a parasite upon your society. Throwing off tyrannical government will allow civil society to flourish and prosper as never before.

Theater of the Absurd

This is really getting tedious. We've got the economist, the musician-turned-video-expert, and the photo analyst discussing physics for the philosopher to argue physics with the mathematician. We've got the nuclear physicist doing material science, and the mechanical engineer and material scientist arguing directed energy. We have the former head of directed energy claiming to be a truther, and saying . . . nothing really. We have an economist suing a long list of huge companies for perpetrating the airplane hoax, but he won't sue the guys he knows did it, that being FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS. 

The other side has a million structural engineers, but they won't model the structure. They leave that to . . . a chemist. We have a chemist too, but he's arguing physics and fire temperatures. We have a theologian summarizing all of the evidence from all of the people working outside their field, and doing a pretty damn good job explaining why the official story can't be true. But he supports the airplane hoax, and says the solution is one world government. Which is exactly what the other side wants.

What the hell am I supposed to do with this?

Mushroom Cloud

Look above the tower after it begins exploding, beginning around :10. Notice the huge, rising, expanding new cloud. Observe the plume expanding to the right, which is west, which is against the wind. Marvel at the cauliflower shapes, much more distinct than the surrounding smoke that has diffused into the air. There is one and only one explanation for this phenomenon - a very large heat energy input. Standard demolitions do not create a mushroom cloud. This one did.

Besides proving demolition, this video rules out Judy Wood's ridiculous claim of "no significant heat". For anyone who hasn't been paying attention, Judy Wood is a fraud. John Hutchison is a fraud. There is no such thing as any Hutchison Effect. The twin towers were blown up with explosives, most likely nuclear.

Judy Wood is certainly an insider charged with the task of misinterpreting the evidence, and leading people to a false conclusion.