Clerk Update: Deep underground nukes or large nukes are considered disinformation today. Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices were at play. Dr. Ward has many nuggets of truth in this piece that need rescuing.
http://www.rense.com/general92/pr911.htm
By Dr. Ed Ward, MD
9-6-10
The Current Irrefutable Conclusion = Treason, Murder and Crimes Against Humanity for 9-11, the Iraq War, and Revocation of Constitutional Rights of US Citizens - All US 'representatives' appropriate US citizens, and non citizens, need to be on trial in Constitutional Courts.
The Current 'Basic' Proven 9-11 Nuke Evidence - (About 95 to 98% of the TOTAL evidence covered) - All proven basic physics/chemistry ANY high school graduate should understand after the basic courses.:
1. Three Massive WTC Craters - See us government LIDAR proof: - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.
http://letsrollforums.com/update-us-government-s-t22024.html?t=22024 - NOT an endorsement of the site.
2. Five Acres (1.2 Billion Pounds = Weight of Residue of 3 WTC Buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 6)) of WTC Land Brought to Seering Temperatures in a Few Hours by an 'Anaerobic, Chlorine Fueled "Fire" - Impossible by Basic Laws of Physics. See us gov Thermal Images proof - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.
http://letsrollforums.com/update-us-government-s-t22024.html?t=22024 - NOT an endorsement of the site.
3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of 'traces' and 'of no human concern'. See us government (DOE report) proof: - Nothing but a NUCLEAR EVENT can cause 'tritium' formation - basic physics fact - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141
4. An Impossible "Fire" (Combustion Process). See Laws of Physics for Fire/Combustion Process and Dr. Cahill's data on 'anaerobic incineration'. Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and thisparticular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.
http://www.rense.com/general77/newlaws.htm
5. 3 Billion pounds of building instantly turned into 2 Billion pounds of micronized dust. - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/ed_ward/use_of_abombs.htm
6. 16 inch steel Spires that withstood 1/2 a Billion pounds of building falling on them and suddenly turn into limp noodles and partially vaporize. Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.
http://letsrollforums.com/update-us-government-s-t22024.html?t=22024 - NOT an endorsement of the site.
7. Hiroshima effect cancers in responders and locals. Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES.
http://letsrollforums.com/update-us-government-s-t22024.html?t=22024 - NOT an endorsement of the site.
All of the above are facts are proven with referenced links of reputable data sources - many are from the government itself and more...
Mini Nukes Were Used on 9-11 http://www.henrymakow.com/mini-nukes_were_used_on_9-11.html
Update: Mini Nukes at the WTC - 9-11 The Fetzer/Ward : Conversations on Mini Nukes in/on WTC/9-11 - 1 hour http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-ed-ward-md.html
Eventually, we get to the WTC, Thermite BS - S. Jones, Micro Nukes/ Mini Nukes in the WTC, Truck Bombs - crater = mini nuke, history of mini nukes, reg demo... needed to cover for nukes & nukes to remove the demo evidence, why 5 nukes needed to fit all the evidence, ALL, 100% of the evidence = nuke; 0, NADA, NO, ANOMALIES; DEW = Wood's BS... It's not me, It's physics.
When 20 = Normal, How does 1,092 = "Traces", Listen Do Want to Know a Secret... Listen - Cancers explained, Tritium explained - Half life = 10 days, craters explained, 1 billion pounds (coincidently the approximate mass of residue of the 3 buildings - basic physics - heat transfer and residual heat) of dirt 1800 degrees MINIMUM. the Nuke evidence - partial but still large, I apologize to Fetzer over not revealing Mini Nukes facts - still have concerns; as for our ex navy seal who more than likely had training/basics of SADM deployment, but definitely got some demo training, yet doesn't understand the 'science'? ;-), Richard Gage addressed,
CORRECTION: All Davy Crockett kilotonage quotes during the above should have been quoted as 0.018 kilotons, not .18, 18, etc - all incorrect numbers = 0.018 kilotons
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-ed-ward-md.html
Setting the Record Straight on Mini Nukes in the WTC/9-11 http://www.rense.com/general91/setting.htm
Mini Nukes Were Used on 9-11 http://www.henrymakow.com/mini-nukes_were_used_on_9-11.html
I did a program with Bill Deagle - not online yet - about the only thing discussed that hasn't been already been explained - 'Swiss Cheese' Steel = Extremely High Concentrations of Chlorine + Very High Temperatures = Classic Oxidation/Reduction Reaction = Steel undergoing MASSIVE oxidation by chlorine. wherever exposed to WTC pile atmosphere.
The Root:
Zionism = The Worst Plague in the History of Mankind
http://www.rense.com/general88/zzz.htm
The Remedy/Rectification:
1. Return to the Original Intent Interpretation of the Constitution.
America's Only Real Choice: Constitution or Tyranny?
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/11/19/ward.htm
The US Is "a Distorted, Bastardized Form of Illegitimate Government." http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/09/10/ward.htm
2. 100% Accurate/Verifiable Voting - FIXED VOTE = NO VOTE. Note - There is no need to sign the petition, just read the information contained and hopefully, act upon it. BTW - The perfect cheap FIXED VOTE yard sign - After the next sham election, grab a few old yard signs that are being discarded after the election. Pick up a nice STANDOUT color paint (not a background color) for 'your new political sign' from 'home of the pot' - since it's so cheap - I'm thinking FLUORESCENT - Paint/Spray - FIXED VOTE = NO VOTE! across it as big as signage will allow, put a word each on a few signs, however you want to do it - just make sure you make it known the vote is fixed and you aren't voting until there is a candidate who's main platform consists of 'verified voting' and original intent interpretation of the Constitution being followed completely. Voting only helps the sham/crime succeed. http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/FIXEDVOTE
It Can't Happen Here Dorothy?:
1. Take a look at 'Operation Northwoods'. The Basic Start a War by murder and treason - CIA Basic Operation Plan - 911/Cuba
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/10/15/ward.htm
2. The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430#
3. German High Court Outlaws Electronic Voting - Wednesday, 21 October 2009, 9:45 am
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0910/S00187.htm
4. Proofs of a Conspiracy against all Nations/Religions - Published in 1793 as the Zionist cults were forming here in US.
http://www.bilderberg.org/lucis.htm
5. Too many to list with credit, USS Liberty, Torture, Rendition, Gulf of Tonkin, WW II attack known, Agent Orange, DU, Nuke Testing spread radiation throughout US, CIA has murdered millions in foreign countries over the decades - that list alone would need a top 100, the PROVEN death and destruction list over time is MASSIVE. Zionism has ruled mankind from the beginning and it's never been stopped - the 'MORE EQUALS' continue to rule...
You have no Saviors - Only Yourself. So What Are You Going To Do?
Ed Ward, MD
http://www.facebook.com/EdWardMD3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little." ~ Sydney Smith
Pages
▼
2010-09-11
23 comments:
Vatic Clerk Tips: After 7 days, all comments to an article go into the moderation queue for approval which happens at least once a day. Please be patient.
Be respectful in your comments, keeping in mind that these discussions will become the Zeitgeist of our time that future database archeologists will discover. Make your comments worthy and on the founding father's level in their respectfulness, reasoning, and sound argumentation. Prove we weren't all idiots in our day and age. Comments that advocate sedition or violence are not encouraged. Racist, ad hominem, and troll-baiting comments might never see the light of day.
"2. Five Acres (1.2 Billion Pounds = Weight of Residue of 3 WTC Buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 6))"
ReplyDelete..Building 6? Seriously? If you want to be taken seriously by providing new information, get your facts correct. It was building 7. /delete comment
@Anony-mouse: show us your website, blog, or posting free of errors and typos. Cut Dr. Ward some slack. "6" is next to "7" on the keyboard.
ReplyDeleteBut what you need to consider is that maybe it wasn't a typo.
WTC-6 was destroyed as well as WTC-7. Whereas we have videos of WTC-7 with documented free-fall stages, we have pictures of WTC-6 with multiple circular (or even spherical) holes.
Take a gander at "9/11 Right is Radical" and scroll down.
http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2009/09/911-right-is-radical.html
Finally, the 9/11 Special isn't as much about providing new information as it is about re-presenting old information that our rational selves knew was true, but that the persistent media psyops helped derail and suppress.
(Mini-)Nukes did 9/11, and we are foolish for letting the government lead us around by our noses with their stupid version.
re: 6 vs 7. 7 was demolished via regular demo. 6 was demolished via micro nuke. Try rereading the evidfence.
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Ward,
ReplyDeleteI know nothing about 9/11 definitely, so take this more as "informed speculation."
I read Dr. Wood's textbook and discovered that her case for directed energy weapons is better than the case I had been championing for milli-nukes. However, even DEW needs an energy source: cold-fusion, fusion-triggered fission, Tesla-hurricanes...? The remnants from the DEW energy source could give off the same clues as milli-nukes, while avoiding some issues like seismic signatures, uncontrollable blast wave, heat wave, etc. The copious amounts of unburnt paper is a clue to me that milli-nukes might not have been used on the towers.
I wouldn't go so far as to say WTC-7 was demolished using conventional techniques. On this matter we can probably rely on Dr. Shyam Sunder who confidently debunked conventional explosives because it lacked the appropriate audio/decibel signature. Weak? For sure, but Dr. Sunder would not have used it if he didn't know that the true cause was something else.
As for WTC-6 and its big bad-ass crater? Could have been a milli-nuke, which might explain the anomalous side-effects that affected vehicles on that street perpendicular to it and next to the WTC-7.
But I'm also leaving the door open for space-based DEW to have made the crater as well as the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5 and cut the WTC-4 main edifice down at a line with the WTC-4 North wing.
A few devices within the towers probably brought them down. Remember the "spire" that stood for a few seconds after the tower around it was pulverized or peeled off? Would have been ideal to plant a DEW device pointing up and other pointing down and timed appropriately. DEW microwaved the water molecules trapped in content, turned it into steam, which then expanded its volume to tear apart the content (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). Explains the copious amounts of pulverized dust exhibited in the destruction from the earliest phases; why paper wasn't affected; why the interior side of the exterior walls were so "clean" of drywall and paint; ...
The evidence presented in Dr. Wood's textbook needs to be addressed by whatever is the theory of the day. According to her, seismic evidence debunks nukes.
My understanding morphs and waffles.
sure some insignificant disproves the perfect, classic textbook examples of 98% of the total evidence = nuclear residue. i can't do much about what other chose to believe despite massive vidence to the contrary and no real evidence to woodheads BS.
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Ward,
ReplyDeleteYou sound in need of an attitude adjustment, particularly as it pertains to Dr. Wood. Do you have her book? Have you read it?
Book reports sans book don't cut it.
This disinformation and smear campaign against Dr. Wood has been going for a long time. Ever wonder why? Even I was taken under its spell until I dug deeper.
Wood Smear Campaign
I do not hold Dr. Wood up as the Lady Madonna, nor do I worship every utterance from her mouth or pen.
If you can disprove DEW, more power to you. I'd like to hear it, so I can change my tune yet again.
"Nuclear residue" could support either milli-nukes or DEW. The pulverized destruction was a massive energy sink requiring a significant energy source. A "nuclear engine" for DEW is not out of the question. In the 1980's and the Star Wars agenda, some ideas involved detonating nuclear devices and channeling/focusing various wavelength energy on distant targets before the explosion destroyed the entire apparatus itself. The point being, the power source for the destruction needs to be separated from the mechanism of the destruction.
I used to be a two-trick pony 9/11 Truther: video fakery and milli-nukes. Since completing Dr. Wood's book, I've unharnessed milli-nukes and mounted the DEW pony.
Why? What are the factors that can be more or less dialed into a nuclear device? Blast wave, heat wave, radiation, and EMP.
If milli-nukes were used, EMP wouldn't be so wide-spread given the detonation happened within the towers with the blast radius dialed in. I have issues with the blast wave and certainly with the heat wave. I think the blast waves from multiple devices would have been more noticeable blasting right out the window slits and significantly faster than free-fall, and would have been difficult (but not impossible) to direct.
The heat wave of a nuclear device... that's where DEW fits better. Where are the charred pieces of building? Why didn't we observe flaming debris? Why wasn't paper incinerated?
Contemplate again what directed energy at specific frequencies could accomplish, what finger prints would it leave, etc.
I think you are probably right on the money to keep hammering home the nuclear residue and the subtle scientific deception (of NIST, Dr. Jones, et al) in framing the measured nuclear residue in a manner that "rules it within the limits of 'background' radiation" and "rules out nuclear weapons of nature X, Y, and Z", never mind that it doesn't rule out nuclear weapons of A, B, or C or nuclear power mechanisms for DEW.
If you do not have Dr. Wood's textbook, I encourage you to get it (and to debunk it if you can). The reason I purchased it was to mine it for nuggets of truth to support my milli-nuke premise. Since then, I've changed my tune.
I do put my money where my mouth is in a "pay it forward" sort of a way. If the age-old smearing of Dr. Wood has you hesitant in shelling out money on something "you are sure is disinformation", then allow me to purchase a copy for you. (Contact me through the Vatic Clerk with shipping instructions or other negotiations on how I can pony up without invading your privacy.)
The caveat to this offer is that you will give this textbook an objective evaluation, mining it for nuggets of truth and debunking it where you can. I want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly. Thereafter, if the textbook has redeemed itself in your estimation, you are then under obligation to "pay it forward" to someone else (preferably an influential individual in the 9/11 Truth Movement like what I am doing with you).
Sincerely,
Bruecke
lol. Woodhead's BS. Doesn't exist. No way to power. Could NOT produce all of the evidence in the time needed. ONLY A NUKE CAN DO IT. Was there a reference fact anywher in the BS quoted that counters my proven facts? When there is let me know.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the only books I need are Basic Chemistry, Physics, Math. Not some BS about what ifs... REAL FACTS.
ReplyDeleteEd Ward, MD
Dear Dr. Ward,
ReplyDeleteI'll respond to your postings in reverse order. You wrote:
"BTW, the only books I need are Basic Chemistry, Physics, Math. Not some BS about what ifs... REAL FACTS."
Where are you getting your REAL FACTS? What do Basic Chemistry, Physics, and Math books publish regarding the evidence on 9/11?
This is a cop out. You have absolutely zero-basis for calling it "BS about what ifs" until you have read it. It is not her website. Your book report sans book does not cut it.
As a medical doctor, you can well afford purchasing a book for yourself, if for no other reason than to satisfy your curiousity or to once and for all expose BS that you (at this point) think is in her book.
Knowing how her reputation has so tainted the perceptions of 9/11 truth seekers, I offer you the book in a "pay it forward" fashion, that you have neither accepted nor rejected.
If the book proves to be complete and utter BS, you obviously won't be paying it forward to anyone. But, you'd have to first prove that. Saying it is BS without even cracking the book does not do that.
I was recommending the book when I wasn't even 1/2 way done with it without knowing whether or not the other half would be 100% disinformation. It has great pictures of the destruction that are correlated on tables to positions on maps to give one a true perspective of what they are seeing. This alone will solidify its place as a valued 9/11 textbook for your library.
I bring this up in reference to the types of books you need. You also need books that pull together the evidence. Dr. Wood did a good job of separating presenting the evidence from making too many leading and forward statements regarding the exact mechanisms of destruction. Even after having finished it, I don't recall too many statements that said precisely what or how it was done (as you attempt); it was more about opening our eyes that other technology exists that can explain the evidence better.
You wrote:
ReplyDeleteWoodhead's BS. Doesn't exist. No way to power. Could NOT produce all of the evidence in the time needed. ONLY A NUKE CAN DO IT.
On the topic of the individual towers, is that your position that "A NUKE" per tower took them out? If so, you are debunked. Where was that single NUKE placed? When I was on the milli-nukes pony (from the Anonymous Physicist), the destruction made more sense with 3 to 6 milli-nukes per tower, because the destruction started up high and had destinctive "explosive" stages.
FTR, Dr. Wood debunks "a nuke" with the help of seismic data, among other things. Read about it in the copy I'm more than happy to "pay it forward" into your hands.
When you write "Woodhead's BS", I assume that you refer to directed energy weapons. You seem to say DEW "doesn't exist." Not true. We just don't know the depth or scope of their DEW portfolios, because it is all top-secret and national security. Common sense says that if scientific papers explored and talked about any aspect of directed energy, the Pentagon will have found (or commissioned) a way to weaponize it. Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program was not a glorified public works job creation program for the overly education; it certainly wasn't missing a mandate to produce something useful or tangible.
Most important of all, you seem to say "no way to power (DEW)" and thereby talk right on past what I wrote. Here are ways they could have powered DEW, whereby not all of them are mutual exclusive.
Method 1: Plug DEW into the wall. When the "planes" hit the towers and shit was hitting the fan, it would have been real easy for NY Public Service power into the tower to be re-routed from the normal circuits to whatever big-ass extension cord cable they dangled down an elevator shaft, while emergency lighting showed the way for people to exit.
Method 2: Cold-fusion or fusion/fission power cell, which would then account for the residual radiation that your research goes to town on.
Method 3: A Tesla Coil combined with the energy of the massive hurricane Erin off the coast of NY. Least likely, but listed because why else would corporate mass media conspire to bury all weather reports on 9/11 that talk about Erin?
Because you capitalized "ONLY A NUKE CAN DO IT", this requires qualifications. If you stick with singular "A NUKE" per tower, even I won't jump from my DEW pony back onto a nukes pony, because the evidence doesn't support this.
Lol, more than 300 references in my series... but, you can't find any facts. Yeah, I never get enough feigned ignorance so one can promote PURE BOGUS SCIENCE.
ReplyDeleteSO... AGAIN... DO YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCED FACTS THAT COUNTER ANY OF MY REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS. NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR OR WOOODHEADS BS. Ed Ward, MD
""""""Was there a reference fact anywhere in the BS quoted that counters my proven facts? When there is let me know."""""""
ReplyDeleteJuly 29, 2011 10:20:00 AM MDT
You see once you know the truth... It's like the scumbags can't wait to id themselves for you. Ed Ward, MD
ReplyDeleteDear Dr. Ward,
ReplyDeleteThe discussion started with the re-posted article from you on nukes in September 2010. Dr. Wood's textbook was published in February 2011, and those are the weeds into which I took the discussion.
In a sincere attempt to get us onto the same page in our reading (whether or not we will agree on the validity of the content), I've already made two "pay-it-forward" offers of supplying you with her textbook.
I want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly about her textbook. If I'm the duped useful idiot, I want someone to show me where I'm being duped.
With regards to your work and the 300 references it contains. Kudos.
Dr. Wood has made statements why she thinks nukes didn't do it. Moreover, she publishes evidence that must be addressed by whatever conspiracy theory we champion.
Why not accept my third (and final) offer of your own copy of her book so that you can mine it for nuggets of truth to support nukes while shining a light on what you consider BS and disinformation? See how nukes and DEW could have points of alignment, like nukes being some form of generator for DEW.
It isn't my place to debunk nukes. That's my Plan B should DEW be completely discredited. It is, however, my place to mine nuggets of truth from various sources -- Dr. Wood and Dr. Ward inclusive -- and form my own speculative plausible explanation in my mind for the "how" of the destruction.
Lol, more than 300 references in my series... but, you can't find any facts. Yeah, I never get enough feigned ignorance so one can promote PURE BOGUS SCIENCE.
ReplyDeleteSO... AGAIN... DO YOU HAVE ANY REFERENCED FACTS THAT COUNTER ANY OF MY REFERENCED PROVEN FACTS. NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR OR WOOODHEADS SCAM BS. Ed Ward, MD July 30, 2011 11:55:00 AM MDT
""""""Was there a reference fact anywhere in the BS quoted that counters my proven facts? When there is let me know."""""""
July 29, 2011 10:20:00 AM MDT
You see once you know the truth... It's like the scumbags can't wait to id themselves for you.
I'd suggest a course in reading comprehension. It seems you have difficulty in reading comprehension. Once you can connect the written word to it's meaning, I suspect you will have much less difficulty.
I HAVE NO USE FOR UNREFERENCED SCAM BS. But, you are more than welcome to spend the rest of your life on it and understanding the written word.
Ed Ward, MD
Dr. Ward, as you have probably guessed, we encourage discussion, disagreements and opposing points of view. They contribute to the path to knowledge and truth, however, we also insist that we keep the level of discourse above personal attacks, as you can see from Brueckes, defense of you in the first comment to his keeping the discussion on the subject matter.
ReplyDeleteI am commenting now because simply because you have almost crossed a line and I wanted to stop it before you did. Words like "scumbags" and using a derisive name for Dr. Woods, lowers your status as an objective perveyor of information.
I am not trying to stop you from your points and asking Bruecke to read your evidence and comment on it, which is a legitimate request, rather, I am asking you to keep the discourse at a level commeserate with your stature and background in science. Remember, we mentioned these records will be the Zeitgeist of our time and we want to show future generations that we were able to resolve, educate, and disagree with class and dignity. Thank you and please continue with those thoughts in mind. Dr. Woods name is Dr. Judy Woods. Thank you.
Dear Dr. Ward,
ReplyDeleteYour responses in this thread are not reflecting well on you, your education, your reputation, or your nuclear cause. It is most funny that you should write:
"I'd suggest a course in reading comprehension. It seems you have difficulty in reading comprehension."
Exactly my point, Dr. Ward. "Reading comprehension", or just plain "reading", was what I was trying to gently nudge you into doing with my sincere offer of purchasing you a textbook, one that I know you as an MD can well afford but also one that I know you will not purchase on your own due to prejudices built up and PSYOPS re-enforced over time against Dr. Wood.
You excitedly wrote:
"I HAVE NO USE FOR UNREFERENCED SCAM BS."
In order for such an illumative book report to be valid, by necessity it must be predicated on having read the book and comprehended what elements are "SCAM, BS," and both.
With regards to your "UNREFERENCED" comment, that's where your bluff is called and exposed. Dr. Wood's textbook is of the quality that one would expect from a college professor. Until you have a copy of your own to hold and cherish, you'll just have to take my word that her tome is a scholarly work with detailed references. The one area where her references have a weakness is in dependence on the WWW; enough reference URLs at the end of varous chapters are broken for it to be noticeable, and the breakage by others are both accidental and deliberate.
Because you keep repeating snippets of your earlier postings, it has the appearance that you are defending your work:
"More than 300 references in my series... but, you can't find any facts. ... Was there a reference fact anywhere in the BS quoted that counters my proven facts?"
It isn't about you. It isn't about your work exclusively. But if you want to go there, then consider this.
A standard practice in articles for technical journals and university thesis & dissertations is to review the available research & literature on the subject. When new research, evidence, and information are presented later from other sources, often new articles and research work is generated through the integration of the new information with the older research.
You call yourself a doctor. You have repeatedly brought up the 300 references in your series as if they were merit badges on your Boy Scout slash. Yet, where is the scholarly effort to integrate (or dispell) Dr. Wood's new research, new evidence, and new information? Why did you refuse my three offers to help you overcome the massive obstacle of not having that research, evidence, and information in your hands?
It remains to be seen whether your "Ed Ward, MD" sockpuppet has anything to do with the real person possessing that name, credentials, and authorship of the article. Where is your website or blog? Why doesn't your profile here link there? The small probability that you might not be who you say your are is re-enforced by your curt and repetitious postings almost unbecoming of a man of your education and reputation.
For the Vatic Lurker readers, my humble opinion is that Dr. Ward's nuclear research has validity. But I no longer support the conclusion that nukes took down the WTC complex, at least not milli-nukes or micro-nukes that we've been conditioned to know and love as being explosives like the Davey Crocket nuke from 1960. I sincerely believe that directed energy weapons can explain the destruction better.
How do I overcome these seeming contradiction of both nukes and DEW being used? DEW may have been powered by a milli-nuclear generators. This is my suppositions, and I'm sticking to it until someone convinces me otherwise.
Ed Ward, MD said...
ReplyDelete""""""Was there a reference fact anywhere in the BS quoted that counters my proven facts? When there is let me know."""""""
July 29, 2011 10:20:00 AM MDT
July 30, 2011 2:14:00 PM MDT
btw, see if you can censor my sites. CLASSIC TEXTBOOK COVERT OPS PROCEDURES. What were the odds?
ReplyDeleteJones/Wood - Head of DEW - ADDRESSED VERY THOROUGHLY HERE....
ReplyDeletehttp://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-ed-ward-md.html
Still anyone with a referenced problem to any of my referenced information? Like on THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLE I POSTED. as always, need references not BS.
DrEd DEWD
Don't worry, I'll post too.
Dear Mr. Ward,
ReplyDeleteI regret that your postings and links to blogs are providing less-and-less clarity into the question of you being a sockpuppet. The repetition and avoidance of discussing Dr. Wood's work with any other than the letters "BS" do not place you in the best of light, particularly in your refusal to get educated on the subject at no cost to you.
You've thrown down the gauntlet more than once with the challenge:
"Was there a reference fact anywhere in the BS quoted that counters my proven facts? When there is let me know."
Okay. Here it is briefly.
"1. Three Massive WTC Craters - See us government LIDAR proof: - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. "
I disagree. The phrase "nothing else" makes your statement pretty broad even with the qualifiers "known to man" or "known to the public." Nukes have other issues in their deployment and execution that puts them on the fence of applicability, like fracticide, like limiting effects (blast wave, heat wave), like dialing in side-effects (radiation, EMP).
A "nuclear generator" to provide power to directed energy weapons is another option that proves "nothing else" a bit too over-generalized. DEW would be easier to focus, direct, and control, and could accomplish the damage to the inner-core without wasting and wilting the outer steel structure.
"2. Five Acres (1.2 Billion Pounds = Weight of Residue of 3 WTC Buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 6)) of WTC Land Brought to Seering Temperatures in a Few Hours... Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke."
The seering temperatures has become an assumption that needs further validation, as well as the duration of such temperatures. The two issues pointed out by Dr. Wood. If such high temperatures were present, [1] the heavy equipment with hydraulic components would have been rendered in operable, [2] the massive amounts of water dumped on the site and helped by weather would have resulted in massive amounts of steam to cook first responders and equipment.
I'm not saying it wasn't seering hot in areas for extended periods of time. I'm saying that doubts have been awakened to question the validity of this assumption.
"3. Tritium Levels 55 Times (normal) Background Levels assessed a numerical value of "traces" and "of no human concern." ... Nothing but a NUCLEAR EVENT can cause "tritium" formation."
I agree and your phrase says it best: "nuclear event." However, my definition of a "nuclear event" has been broadened to include "nuclear reaction" or "energy generation through nuclear means."
Dr. Jones supposedly debunked nukes using precisely these tritium measurements, with his deliberately distracting premise fitting this data into the framework of conventional nuclear weapons. In doing so, he purposely excluded considering other exotic nuclear weapons that would have a signature deviating from such a "nuclear norm." It also excluded novel uses of "nuclear devices" in the form of energy generation as opposed to destruction.
"4. An Impossible "Fire" (Combustion Process). See Laws of Physics for Fire/Combustion Process and Dr. Cahill's data on 'anaerobic incineration'."
Yes, unspent but fizzling nuclear material can explain the anaerobic incineration. However, such by-product is not limited to nuclear weapons and could include nuclear generators.
-- Continued for Dr. Ward
ReplyDelete"5. 3 Billion pounds of building instantly turned into 2 Billion pounds of micronized dust. - Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES."
The parts of the building turned to dust versus the parts of the building that weren't, raises questions on the use of nuclear weapons and opens the door for (nuclear powered) DEW. Why weren't the inner-side of walls wilted or turned to dust, which is what a nuclear weapon would do? Why weren't nuclear flashes and the radial spewing of content from the detonation point more prevelent? Why was there so much paper flying through the air yet unburned?
(Nuclear powered) DEW would [1] be aimed to leave the outer structure in place until other mechanisms took it out and [2] act on the trapped water molecules in content expanding instantaneously into steam that would dustify and steam targeted content. Paper with low water content would be unburned.
"6. 16 inch steel Spires that withstood 1/2 a Billion pounds of building falling on them and suddenly turn into limp noodles and partially vaporize. "
First of all, other views of the collapsing spire do not show it partially vaporizing.
Secondly, what I observe is that a dust cloud is seemingly generated instantly around the spire and particularly at each level where residual content (drywall, concrete) were still present. It seemingly disassembles the pieces from the whole by turning that "gluing content" into dust, and the steel pieces disappear at free-fall through the dust cloud.
DEW directed up could accomplish this clean-up destruction. Rather than an anomaly, the spire could be looked upon as an instrumental part of the DEW demolition if it hosted & supported the DEW device(s) planted in the upper reaches of the tower.
"7. Hiroshima effect cancers in responders and locals. Nothing else known to man can leave ALL the WTC debris and this particular evidence in the length of time needed , except a third generation Micro Nuke - Mini Nuke - Nuke. It's 100% classic textbook nuclear event residue - ZERO ANOMALIES."
Again, as we see with the Japan, nuclear reactors for generating power can go bad and introduce all sorts of short- and long-term health ailments and cancers in the responders and locals.
OMG, do you see whats transpiring in Syria? Despite a brutal government crackdown, the manifestations continue
ReplyDelete