By: Maxwell C. Bridges
Date: 2011-05-22
{Bridges: I did some minor cyber-sleuthing in an attempt to reach these leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I posted this a technical question in the Contact Us section of AE911 Truth website [for Mr. Gage.] I posted this as a Contact Us message to 911SpeakOut.org [for Mr. Cole.] I put this into an email to an old email address that uses the domain of a well-know 9/11 website [for Mr. Roberts.]}
Dear Mr. Jonathan Cole, Mr. Richard Gage, and Mr. Gregg Roberts,
Maybe I am the ultimate "duped useful idiot", because evidence at various points has convinced me of pods on planes, nano-thermite, DEW, milli-nukes, no-planes, CIT flyover, simVictims, hollow towers, etc. Of course, convincing debunking has had me cycle away from many of these, after which yet more evidence and analysis brings some of them back to the forefront as my current position.
Your recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" does not do justice to the topic or Dr. Judy Wood's textbook. I encourage you to make another thorough reading of her book and mine it for nuggets of truth.
I'm not saying that elements of her conclusions might not ultimately belong in the disinformation category. The danger that we must overcome when faced with concerted covert/overt disinformation campaigns (which is all around 9/11) is in too quickly dismissing a person and all of their conclusions, which then consequently dismisses all of the evidence and truths upon which their conclusions are built.
This is in fact what has happened and is happening with Dr. Judy Wood's efforts. It is good and well when your scientific and scholarly efforts find issues with her analysis and conclusions. But when your own theories that the Truth Movement lines up to march behind do not address the glaring evidence that Dr. Wood at least attempts, then your theories come up short. Worse, you know it.
Let us assume that nano-thermite was found in the dust and was one of the mechanisms deployed in the towers' destruction. Still, nano-thermite does not address all of the features of the destruction, and you do the 9/11 Truth Movement a major disservice when you allow this mechanism to be extracted and applied as an explanation for all that was observed.
Case in point, nano-thermite does reach extremely high temperatures quickly, but:
(A) Nano-thermite's very fast burn rate makes it an unlikely candidate to account for the DURATION of the underground fires. Do the math; you'd need massive overkill amounts.
(B) Nano-thermite is an incidiary useful for cutting. The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink, whereby nano-thermite not only would be less than ideal to generate this explosive energy in a controlled fashion, but also would necessitate again massive overkill amounts.
(C) Massive overkill amounts introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(D) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain all of the damage to vehicles, like those where fires originated ~inside~ the vehicle, unique burn patterns, and destruction of things like plastic door handles and gas caps. [This is major area where your article comes damn close to exposing itself as disinformation.]
A nugget of truth mined from the Russian disinformation agent, Dimitri K., is that in order to obtain building permits for the towers, they had to have an approved demolition plan; nuclear devices were supposedly in those demolition plans from the 60's. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960.)
Dr. Wood unwittingly debunks Dimitri's thesis of "deep underground nukes", because she presents undisputed evidence of the undamaged bathtub and only 3 or 4 of 7 subway lines being obstructed, as well as seismic evidence. Moreover, she calculates why dustification was required. Had the perpetrators not gone to overkill measures, massive chunks of building (like the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 that should have tumbled over or what traditional controlled demolition creates) falling from great heights would have had massive amounts of kinetic energy and been sufficient to damage the bathtub. Any significant crack of the bathtub walls would have flooded the WTC basements, the subway tubes including the ones going under the Hudson, and the basements of many other NYC buildings.
Thus, we must acknowledge that dustification of structure and content weren't just flukes of an overly efficient overkill demolition (as would be expected of a tight paramilitary operation); dustification was a demolition goal to limit the scope of destruction to the WTC and to leave the intact bathtub & subways for rebuilding. As such, we must work backwards, recognize this dustification is a massive energy sink, and theorize what could be its energy source.
Conventional explosives and nano-thermite as primary mechanisms have the same issues: massive overkill amounts are required and would present more risk of exposing the operation during their installation and aftermath.
This is why I've been (until recently) championing milli-nukes. Multiple fusion-triggered fission devices per tower can explain the dustification, the foundry-level fires burning for months under the rubble (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material), measured radiation levels, damage to vehicles, and first responder ailments.
It turns out that DEW can also account for the energy source, but this has always been spun inside and outside the 9/11 Truth Movement as "space-based DEW." Because the dustification of the towers began within the structure at the supposed plane impact level and not tippy-top down, space-based DEW get ruled out. (Space-based DEW is something to keep in consideration for the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of just the main edifice of WTC-4 that was cut at a neat line from its relatively undamaged North wing. The woefully unreported HUGE hurricane off of the coast of NY could hide what was happening in space.)
I'm not finished with Dr. Wood's textbook yet, but she is getting me to waffle on this milli-nuke premise. I'll be damned if she isn't making a convincing case for cold fusion, which is making a come-back in the scientific community. [Is it a coincidence that the nuclear scientist who debunked cold fusion on behalf of the US govt in 1989, that the nuclear scientist who ruled out the use of any type of nuke on 9/11, and that the nuclear scientist who discovered nano-thermite in the dust and allowed the minions of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate nano-thermite into explaining evidence (e.g., the ~duration~ of underground fires, the dustification of content) is none other than Dr. Steven Jones?]
DEW from cold-fusion needs to be seriously considered.
I have a growing library of 9/11 literature and DVDs. Next to Chandler's DVDs and Dr. Griffin's researched books, Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming a highly valued and treasured addition to my library that I feel all serious researchers should have. Alone her collection of color pictures that are correlated to map positions justifies its purchase and study, because it brings into perspective the scope of the destruction (and the limits of the destruction e.g., the bathtub). I thought the 2nd half that goes into DEW would be disinformation that we'd want to show our grandchildren how our generation was played. I'm discovering that this 2nd half is not... at least not yet as far as I've read.
Your conclusion was: "We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence."
Sorry, my response is "Bullshit." Exactly the opposite. Go back and try again.
Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
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.
Date: 2011-05-22
{Bridges: I did some minor cyber-sleuthing in an attempt to reach these leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I posted this a technical question in the Contact Us section of AE911 Truth website [for Mr. Gage.] I posted this as a Contact Us message to 911SpeakOut.org [for Mr. Cole.] I put this into an email to an old email address that uses the domain of a well-know 9/11 website [for Mr. Roberts.]}
Dear Mr. Jonathan Cole, Mr. Richard Gage, and Mr. Gregg Roberts,
Maybe I am the ultimate "duped useful idiot", because evidence at various points has convinced me of pods on planes, nano-thermite, DEW, milli-nukes, no-planes, CIT flyover, simVictims, hollow towers, etc. Of course, convincing debunking has had me cycle away from many of these, after which yet more evidence and analysis brings some of them back to the forefront as my current position.
Your recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" does not do justice to the topic or Dr. Judy Wood's textbook. I encourage you to make another thorough reading of her book and mine it for nuggets of truth.
I'm not saying that elements of her conclusions might not ultimately belong in the disinformation category. The danger that we must overcome when faced with concerted covert/overt disinformation campaigns (which is all around 9/11) is in too quickly dismissing a person and all of their conclusions, which then consequently dismisses all of the evidence and truths upon which their conclusions are built.
This is in fact what has happened and is happening with Dr. Judy Wood's efforts. It is good and well when your scientific and scholarly efforts find issues with her analysis and conclusions. But when your own theories that the Truth Movement lines up to march behind do not address the glaring evidence that Dr. Wood at least attempts, then your theories come up short. Worse, you know it.
Let us assume that nano-thermite was found in the dust and was one of the mechanisms deployed in the towers' destruction. Still, nano-thermite does not address all of the features of the destruction, and you do the 9/11 Truth Movement a major disservice when you allow this mechanism to be extracted and applied as an explanation for all that was observed.
Case in point, nano-thermite does reach extremely high temperatures quickly, but:
(A) Nano-thermite's very fast burn rate makes it an unlikely candidate to account for the DURATION of the underground fires. Do the math; you'd need massive overkill amounts.
(B) Nano-thermite is an incidiary useful for cutting. The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink, whereby nano-thermite not only would be less than ideal to generate this explosive energy in a controlled fashion, but also would necessitate again massive overkill amounts.
(C) Massive overkill amounts introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(D) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain all of the damage to vehicles, like those where fires originated ~inside~ the vehicle, unique burn patterns, and destruction of things like plastic door handles and gas caps. [This is major area where your article comes damn close to exposing itself as disinformation.]
A nugget of truth mined from the Russian disinformation agent, Dimitri K., is that in order to obtain building permits for the towers, they had to have an approved demolition plan; nuclear devices were supposedly in those demolition plans from the 60's. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960.)
Dr. Wood unwittingly debunks Dimitri's thesis of "deep underground nukes", because she presents undisputed evidence of the undamaged bathtub and only 3 or 4 of 7 subway lines being obstructed, as well as seismic evidence. Moreover, she calculates why dustification was required. Had the perpetrators not gone to overkill measures, massive chunks of building (like the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 that should have tumbled over or what traditional controlled demolition creates) falling from great heights would have had massive amounts of kinetic energy and been sufficient to damage the bathtub. Any significant crack of the bathtub walls would have flooded the WTC basements, the subway tubes including the ones going under the Hudson, and the basements of many other NYC buildings.
Thus, we must acknowledge that dustification of structure and content weren't just flukes of an overly efficient overkill demolition (as would be expected of a tight paramilitary operation); dustification was a demolition goal to limit the scope of destruction to the WTC and to leave the intact bathtub & subways for rebuilding. As such, we must work backwards, recognize this dustification is a massive energy sink, and theorize what could be its energy source.
Conventional explosives and nano-thermite as primary mechanisms have the same issues: massive overkill amounts are required and would present more risk of exposing the operation during their installation and aftermath.
This is why I've been (until recently) championing milli-nukes. Multiple fusion-triggered fission devices per tower can explain the dustification, the foundry-level fires burning for months under the rubble (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material), measured radiation levels, damage to vehicles, and first responder ailments.
It turns out that DEW can also account for the energy source, but this has always been spun inside and outside the 9/11 Truth Movement as "space-based DEW." Because the dustification of the towers began within the structure at the supposed plane impact level and not tippy-top down, space-based DEW get ruled out. (Space-based DEW is something to keep in consideration for the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of just the main edifice of WTC-4 that was cut at a neat line from its relatively undamaged North wing. The woefully unreported HUGE hurricane off of the coast of NY could hide what was happening in space.)
I'm not finished with Dr. Wood's textbook yet, but she is getting me to waffle on this milli-nuke premise. I'll be damned if she isn't making a convincing case for cold fusion, which is making a come-back in the scientific community. [Is it a coincidence that the nuclear scientist who debunked cold fusion on behalf of the US govt in 1989, that the nuclear scientist who ruled out the use of any type of nuke on 9/11, and that the nuclear scientist who discovered nano-thermite in the dust and allowed the minions of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate nano-thermite into explaining evidence (e.g., the ~duration~ of underground fires, the dustification of content) is none other than Dr. Steven Jones?]
DEW from cold-fusion needs to be seriously considered.
I have a growing library of 9/11 literature and DVDs. Next to Chandler's DVDs and Dr. Griffin's researched books, Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming a highly valued and treasured addition to my library that I feel all serious researchers should have. Alone her collection of color pictures that are correlated to map positions justifies its purchase and study, because it brings into perspective the scope of the destruction (and the limits of the destruction e.g., the bathtub). I thought the 2nd half that goes into DEW would be disinformation that we'd want to show our grandchildren how our generation was played. I'm discovering that this 2nd half is not... at least not yet as far as I've read.
Your conclusion was: "We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence."
Sorry, my response is "Bullshit." Exactly the opposite. Go back and try again.
Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
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.
Though I do not have a reference ready to cite (but will search my archives for such), I have read that there is a problem in exploding multiple nuclear weapons in close proximity to each other (both temporally and spatially). The problem is interaction between the explosion of one and the steps required to detonate it's neighbors. The neutrons from an exploding warhead can start a partial chain reaction in a neighbor, resulting in a fizzle. Than there is the fact that the intense heat and pressure can change the detonation pattern of the High Explosives used to bring the nuclear material together into a critical mass, or prematurely detonate those explosives, again resulting in a fizzle. Given that the explosions at the towers visibly take place over a matter of seconds, it seems obvious that the above factors would have come into play. In other words, unless heavily shielded nukes were used with timers (implying physically very large devices), the devices would not have functioned.
ReplyDeleteNow we're talkin' ~!
ReplyDeleteThe undamaged bathtub debunks the nuke theory.
It is only the direct energy choice that will "dustify" material,
not the other options leading people astray...
And of course the main reason the "insincere" have
lead people away from direct energy weaponry,
cold fusion and free energy come to mind.
Then they can't control we the sheeple! :")
Hi All, Just got back to vatic. Dr. Judy Wood has found the answer to 911 and if can't see it, you are part of your own problem. Good Luck, truth is coming and those opposed should consider DUMBs soon.....adtomeus
ReplyDeleteNo, the nuke theory is not debunked by yours or my assumptions of what our modern weapons are capable of, particularly non-atmospheric, hydrogen based. After all, consider a neutron bomb's careful specificity. I think the line betwen DEW, a broad and nebulous term, might be fuzzier than we think. But we should not apriori diecount nukes because of what we assume they behave like. These are very classified, modern weapons and it is silly to assume they all detonate like in the movies. In fact, there is an active disinfo campaign to prevent us from knowing how ubiquitous nukes are now. We actually used hem in Iraq!
ReplyDelete