September Clues, Simon Shack

2007-07-05T23:58:00.001-07:00

September Clues Part A

For "Dynamic Duo" May 30, 2007

2007-05-30T12:02:00.000-07:00

One:

National Security Presidential Directive 51

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
May 18, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.
In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20."

The White House released it on May 9.
[]
___________________________________________________________________

Last night on every channel
"National Security Agency emergency Channel Test"

Anti - Arab Rhetoric

Boca Raton Ft Lauderdale "Here Now Already.

Security at battery Park:" "Don't You forget It"
Threatening Rhetoric:

Russian soldier on 9/11 with foreknowledge of tower collapse.

nothing informations

Two

Reflexes
Curtain Chewer

Three

War of the Worlds

Curtain Chewer

Four

Letter to Alan Sokol

Dear Professor Sokal,

I do not have the time at this moment to properly research you and your book, "Impostures Intellectuelles." So I apologize for that in advance - for approaching you without accomplishing what would normally be my requisite understanding of your position and work, beforehand.

I will be going on a radio show tomorrow - that of Dr. James Fetzer, who is a retired professor of philosophy (He graduated Magna cum Laude from your "alma mater" Princeton in 1962 ). Professor Fetzer's specialty is in the field of logic and the history and philosophy of science. He has published more than 100 articles and reviews and 20 books in the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science:http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/completecv.html. (While I am an amateur in all of these subjects and have little more than a layman's familiarity with Physics, though am interesting in popular science and math. And did get an "A" in college Physics at U.C.L A.!)

I want the advise of a reliable Physicist in preparation for this show. I found your name and the following quote:

"I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them."
and I am casually familiar with your work debunking those who believe truth is "relative" and "subjective." - which makes me hope you will not be swayed by any operations of "group-mind," and by the social and cultural pressures on the question I have for you.

You, especially as a scientist, but most especially as a person who has defended the undergirds of science, must know that certain things may be implausible, but "impossible" will trump that. "Impossible" trumps "implausible."

My question for you is: "Does this video clip, on face, portray something that is physically possible?" :

and in a related vein, "Could this series of time-lapse frames portray a real event?" :
Click on image to enlarge, please.

If the answer to the above questions are "Yes" I would like to know specifically what happened to Newton's 3rd "Law" of Motion.

As I admit, I am not a professional Physicist, yet I have thought much about this particular problem: From the point of view of "What is real?" , "What can be possible?" and also from a social science point of view by thinking of consensus reality, "Mind Control," group dynamics and the affects of the Television - - as well as the general erosion of the ability to think by the public-at-large, in order to explain to myself why others excuse, what I consider to be, inexcusable.

Isn't a commercial airplane an hollow and fragile Aluminium object? In all the the alleged "amateur" clips - (I only showed you one above, as an example), which are verily the only photographic records of the "actual" "767 hit on the South Tower," the "airplane" does not break-up nor does it slow down.

Don't such objects normally break-up upon impact with a solid object? Especially an impact with something as massive as a 500K-ton Tower?

Here are images of the results of other such impacts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2A_gTMJUcs

Here are the results of impact of an Aluminium aircraft and a bird:

http://killtown.911review.org/images/2nd-hit/bird-strikes/t44a-bird-strike1.jpg

I am going to be very simple and stupid here:

Don't airplanes usually break-up when they hit a solid object?

I am certainly not as smart in mathematical Physics as most, if not all, of even your own students - however, using "word problems" I can describe for you what I contend are the physical inconsistencies in the public portrait of the central organizing "fact" of our present day foreign and domestic policy. Please show me how I am wrong, if I am.

There was no sharp edge along the front of the reputed 767, which, *perhaps*, could've enabled a "focus" of the force of the impact upon the solid steel columns ( which surrounded the Tower in an array) and upon the solid cement floorings (which extended in a, four ft. deep, plane across the breadth of the Tower in the numerous areas of the alleged cement/Al "plane" interfaces) to result in the clean shearing portrayed. There is not.

The "airplane" is portrayed as not slowing down. The "airplane" does not slow as it hits the Tower.

My inference, from this obvious lack of impediment to the presumed inertial force, is that *no counterforce is exerted.*
If *no counterforce is exerted* what enabled the cut into the Tower?

The "airplane" is portrayed as not breaking up upon "impact." Not even slightly.

My inference from this is that *no force is exerted.* upon the "plane" by the Tower.
If *no counterforce was exerted,* what happens to Newton's revelations? Specifically his 3rd "Law?"

Have people decided to throw away Newton's 3rd Law in the service of politics?

If you want to meet me in person, you will see that I am not hoaxing you.

I am going to run this by Physicist after Physicist to document their Apologetics.

Maybe I will be convinced by you that what is portrayed is natural? Can you explain it?

The problem appears to be elementary Physics:

2 objects allegedly hit. The force of the impact should bear upon both. One is sheared open cleanly by the "impact," with a neat hole matching the silhouette of its compliment. One object is thereby swallowed by another. The one swallowed does not appear to be affected by any force - it doesn't slow down nor does it break apart.

Is this scenario, in your professional opinion, reproducible or is it akin to the trajectory pattern of the "magic bullet" on Nov. 22, 1963? (In that case, the "Laws" of Physics were pronounced to be in abeyance, by politicians? Is a "Law" of Physics like a Law governing a political "election?" On certain days it might change, but it does not, because of that change, set any precedent for the future?)

Thank you for your time, if you have indeed read this far. I know it must be finals week and appreciate any pronouncement or explanation you may care to make on this , most elementary I am sure, problem of Physics.

Your, in Newton,
"Peggy Carter"

Test Crash Plane Pulverized

Five

Holmgresn' Vision: Blindspot of the Blockheads

"The reality is that most people are quite happy to see villages in some far off country get the crap bombed out of them if they think it'll make their petrol cheaper or whatever. They're quite happy to see their neighbor get marched off to Gitmo, if it means an extra parking space in the street or whatever."

Good Mother Cindy Sheenhan Hurt by US culture and "Democrats"

Six

Seven: Psychopathology

Sir Rudy admits WTC7 was fed black-ops center

Eight

Goals
"I know that many of you here know a lot more about law and politics than me. Here are some potential big goals, and we can think of actions that would support those goals.

Goal
- reasons

1. Expose the media hoax
- makes it harder to pull off the next 9/11
- creates political climate favorable to catching and punishing 9/11 perps
- erodes public support for goals of the perps

2. Catch and punish the bad guys
- sends a message that working on mass-murder false flag operations is not OK
- restores faith in the Justice system and political process
- changes the risk / reward scenario of mass-murder-for-profit

3. Repair system of "checks and balances". Prevent mass-media and the military from being used as a tool for false-flag terrorists
- makes it more difficult to pull off another 9/11
- restore military honor (defend civilization instead of murdering civilians)

Most of my effort is against #1, since I think it's harder to execute against #2 and #3 until people realize what's happened. As more people become aware of the Big Lie, we'll pick up additional resources to work on fixing the system (friendly lawmakers, sympathetic military officers willing to speak out, maybe even some more whistleblowers).

Fred/"bsregistration"

You Tube Favorites

ewing2001 pres. DJ Jeff Pumpitout: 9/11 *was* FCS ! (Hunting Steven "LosAlamos" Jones BeBop Wescam M

9/11 Research Links

September Clues, Simon Shack

For "Dynamic Duo" May 30, 2007

Selections from the Latest Research