Will the real David Hooper please stand up

a guy who gave a 9 to a movie about the Spirit Molecule

What does my review of a movie that I found interesting, have anything to do with this movie? Let's stay on subject. If it makes you feel better I'll remove my review; it means that little to me.
In fact, I'll not wait for your reply. You've been robbed of an argument; it's gone. But, I'll leave the reference; I don't want to be called a liar AND a shill; not that either matters to me; I do want to argue on merit.

Do you know what a non sequitur is?;clearly not. If you did, you'd not have brought up my rating of The Spirit Molecule. As an aside, have you watched it? I'll take it on faith that you have; and not make the assumption you're daft enough to use it as a plausible basis for argument about something wholly and completely different. The fact is only you know the truth; for me that's enough, because I am not your mirrors. Only you need to look at yourself.

Moving along:

Is anything I said not a fact; Y/N?

Is one of these Hoopers lying?

This seems a fairly straightforward question to me; apparently, those aren't allowed. Truthers look for a motive, but for some reason no one else can; is that truth or suppression? It seems odd for a movement whose moniker is: The Truth Movement. Maybe, there's a defiintion for "truth" I'm not familiar with, though. Whatever the case, it's an argument "Truthers" like to use; just not against themselves. They also encourage that questions be asked. Except, asking questions of the person telling the "truth". This is a logical dichotomy; it runs counter to itself, (and to be honest I just made that up; had to, because there isn't a precedent for logical argument that describes: Ask questions, but don't ask them of the people aed says are right![That's kind of an appeal to authority, but admitting as much would be granting you an awful lot--and you don't know what a non sequitur is). But, conspiracy theorists have already been shown to be capable of holding even concurrent, self-negating theories as plausible; so, I shouldn't, and am not, surprised. The reason I ask it: He paints himself as one person, when in fact he's another; that's not enough to ask though. The person(s) he describes himself as being wouldn't even talk to each other. They never would have vied for the same parking spaces at work or at the store (this guy's not buying clothes at Walmart©), he's Nordstrom's ©.


IMDb Mini Biography By: David Hooper

The day after graduating from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) in 1991, Hooper started his first company, which is still in operation today.

David has started six companies in his life, whose cumulative revenue totals over $80 million in the last 20 years.

There is always the possibility that Mr Hooper did suffer as a result of the failure of the city of Detroit, and needed to make some money (admittedly that would suck, but stealing from anyone looking for some other explanation seems worse, No?); that's the kind of speculation I try to stay away from. But, like the coincidences b/w 6 businesses started and this being about WTC 7 that I mentioned, it doesn't mean I don't see them. Draw your own conclusions, I won't even ask that you drink the water; at least recognize that you've been led to it. How would any businesses you have, fare if fully one-third of the nearest, large population center just up and left (Detroit)? You're probably going to want to answer in RED ink.

Save the BLACK ink for the next "business".

That was a very hard time in my life. It felt like my world was turned upside down. I couldnt stop researching. I was unemployed. And I was running out of savings.

I said all of the above to say this: Mr Hooper starts his organization of freely available material, potentially with a lie ("the regular guy"); fills it out with his "life spent working and living in high rises" (I don't know how this makes him an authority), and then contributes his own bio, which includes the factoid:

cumulative revenue totals over $80 million in the last 20 years.

For me the regular guy is gone; replaced by someone with an agenda (maybe public office; THAT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME ONE IOTA, btw), if you still see the "regular guy", you're not going to want to read any further, but you should.
The arguments he poses aren't new. They are explained with math, physics, testing, and peer-reviewed articles. If you want this guy to be the next Michael Moore, buy it. If you want a millionaire to show his "truther" colors, make him run for office, make him lease a bus and drive to D.C., but most of all: MAKE HIM SPEND HIS OWN MONEY, and don't pay him for using someone else's by appealing to cognitive bias against facts. Most importantly, if he starts by lying, then reinforces that lie with his bio and testimony on film; how are you, I, or anyone to know what his true beliefs and motives are? That's likely another of those questions I shouldn't be asking. But, it's my nature, and it explains why I believe what I do about 9/11. I've said this in other forums; truthers need to get organized, settle on methods for "pulling it all off", figure out how it's been kept secret, why no one has broken the silence, and get off their asses. Sun-Tzu, The Art of War: Don't wage a siege, it only strengthens your enemy, while it saps you.
That's abbreviated, I don't feel like going upstairs to quote verbatim from the book. UPDATE: The Art of War is out on loan. Disconcerting too; it's been out since Dec 2013; time to make some phone calls.



If this isn't a money-making endeavor, then what is it?
If he's started six businesses, and the preceding question's answer is: "money-making endeavor"; doesn't this make this business #7?


Let's address the other portion of your argument?:

Who are you shilling for?

In addressing this question, I'm going to take the position that I am shilling for the purposes of context and argument.
Now, if I were shilling, the answer would seem pretty obvious to anyone possessed of the ability for rational thought--so why ask it?; unless you fall into the exclusion. You asked it; which leaves . . . [fill in the blank]

who's drivin' your plane

I'm fairly certain planes are flown, save the taxi to and from runways. Further, I don't have a plane. If I could afford it I wouldn't buy one; do you know what the upkeep is on one of those?
Look up non sequitur, you'll find the numbers there.

Watching videos is not reading. The link below is; it is part of a massive website devoted to researching all aspects of the attacks and the subsequent collapses. It also includes detailed chemical analysis of the "vaunted" thermite, nanothermite, and thermate, via Xray spectography and other methods.

Accurate Collapse History of WTC7

The Case of World Trade Center 7

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PA GE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=293&MMN_position=622:622
The NIST report is incomplete at best; botched at worst; neither of which are culpable offenses. The MIT report is much more extensive; again it requires reading and a fair bit of math. It describes the collapses in "as it happened" moments (fractions of a second). No one looks at it because, admittedly, it is dry. There are no pretty pictures, this isn't strictly true, there are a couple of photos of the methods by which the metals would (let me qualify that with *COULD*) have sheared, and I believe a diagram of the core members that failed immediately after impact, which virtually assured WTCs 1 & 2 failure.

Here it is:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impac t.pdf


If I wanted to sell a video, I wouldn't include this in my own production.

By all means too, don't address the questions I asked:

So, which is it? He was unemployed and burning through his savings, or his first company is still in business and he's got revenues from his businesses in excess of 80 mil?

by his own admission in his bio he's made 80 mil; why crowd-source, exactly?

In not addressing the questions I pose, you've revealed that, by default, Mr Hooper gets a "pass" from you. Now, if his contentions and intent were different, it would be "open season" on his fundraising methods. Do you see the disjunct? But, I know that no one wants to argue this on a level field. So, let's take that out of the discussion.

With the exception of his commentary and screen time, NONE of the information isn't available for free. Why not direct people to it? Why sell it to them? I submit that Mr Hooper knows his market, my speculation starts and ends with using the crowd-funding as market tool [genius, honestly]; the coloring book and cartoon crowd. These are not crossword puzzle, Scrabble, or sudoku fans. Sadly, by default, they are the majority; take a look at standardized testing and how the US stacks up against other first world countries, I don't even like that term but post Cold War, it's understood what is meant by it.

If he's truly dedicated to disseminating "facts" (none of the buildings fell at free-fall, the links explain as much [that'll address my reference to tenth-grade understanding of falling objects], why is he pocketing the balance? This is why I provided the link to the YouTube video; which incidentally he will be paid for, by way of click through monetization. But, I wanted to see what, if anything, he had to say might sway me; the result: NO CHANCE
Where is the "risk" of using his own money? There isn't any, if you understand business, you'll know that risk management is key to maintaining profitability (I'll not address the question of actuaries; that's insurance; but essentially the same model). Where is the market?; He found it, took their money, and is prepared to sell it back to them, for profit.
Draw your own conclusions.
Don't listen to me.
See if you recognize the clips not including Hooper. But, please save your money. If his paltry donation of $2 per sale is motivation enough, then donate it yourself (do you itemize?; Hooper does), and take the write-off. You're free to believe what you want, obviously. But don't pay this clown to show you what you (NOT ME), already "know".

I've seen this; all of it and more. But, most of what is filmed is better understood by reading (I hope we can agree this is most true of movies that started as books); particularly the failures and the math and physics behind it; neither of which is emotionally compelling or likely to stir the "slumbering masses" (I can't believe I typed that, I slay me) to action.

The number of people who believe this tripe should surely have reached some critical mass, by now. Where do they reside?; Isolated, pounding furiously away on keyboards that "somebody needs to do something" and saying: "wake up!" Not recognizing that in the same stroke they're saying: "Do it FOR me, I'm too lazy" Which is the genesis of the mentality; no, I'll leave the mentality out. People tend to get offended if they're intelligence is brought into question. I'll chose "personality profile" as the genesis. Not, The Constant Gardener, but The Constant Victim.

Do I have to ask where the thriller is? I'm hoping not; the obvious answer, to me anyway, is that it's a lot easier to sell something that says "Thriller" than it is to sell something that says "Documentary of Readily Available, Free Information". Don't believe me?; ask Michael Jackson. WHOOPS!; guess you're going to have to trust me on that one. But, I think the numbers would bear that out as factual enough.

So we're clear, I would LOVE for someone to present undeniable, incontrovertible evidence that my beliefs are wrong. Why? Because I would have left whatever day that was a smarter person. As things stand with regard to this, I'm as smart as I'm going to get.

If you didn't know about competing arguments for the 5 "W's": Who? What? Where? When? and Why?, that's your own fault.

Spare me please, the argument that I "trust" the Gov't. Gov't, by definition, is at odds with the governed. Both vie for as much power as they can. Gov't wants more than the governed, however. There are things the governed don't want to dirty their hands with. Those things are deferred to the Gov't. Gov'ts as a general rule do not commit suicide, it's anathema. Orchestrating anything like this is (inside our own borders; we do things, not as sensational, but equally reprehensible [if not more so] overseas) suicide. Can you name one standing nation's, officiating body that put a gun to its own head, or strung an extension cord around its neck? I've read a lot of history and the closest qualification I can name is the USSR. But, even that was a slow, lingering cancer manifested in financial collapse. If you've got another, I'll listen, read, evaluate, read some more, then give you my take.

One of the problems today is that anything that makes it onto video is automatically afforded some "heft" of veracity, by virtue of repetition (like hypnosis), that print media isn't granted. Print has to earn it. Video is passive spoon-feeding: "Sit right there, I will tell you what you need to know and what you want to hear." Where reading is an investment of time, diligence, and attention span.

Go ahead, get your wallet ready and have a seat.

If you pay this man for information that has existed, literally, for years; you're only getting duped.

Guess who's getting paid?




The worst girlfriend I ever had is better than the best god I never did.

reply share

add reply

formatting help