http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/on-the-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis-an-open-letter-to-gage-and-cole/
By: Maxwell C. Bridges
Date: 2011-06-07
The recent article “AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?“ by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:
In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (wrongly) by the scientifically weaker yeomen of the 9/11 Truth movement to explain all (or most) of the observed destruction features.
Case in point – nano-thermite reaches 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; massive overkill amounts would be required.
(B) The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink. Again the math suggests massive overkill amounts.
(C) Is nano-thermite an incendiary useful for cutting, or an explosive that employs massive changes in air pressure to achieve destruction? As an incendiary, nano-thermite would be less than ideal to coordinate and generate the observed explosive energy of dustification. As an explosive, nano-thermite does not explain the steady and long burn of the under-rubble fires. Moreover, wouldn’t such explosives leave audible signatures and decibel levels that NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder confidently states weren’t present?
(D) Massive overkill amounts of nano-thermite (or conventional chemical incendiaries/explosives) under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(E) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain the anomalous damage to vehicles. How does nano-thermite explain unique burn patterns that seemingly “cooked off” things like plastic door handles and gas caps yet didn’t affect surrounding paper and other more easily combustible materials? In some cases, the fires appear to have originated inside the vehicle.
So if nano-thermite has been incorrectly extrapolated by the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to explain observed destruction features that it cannot, then we are left with a void that must be filled, evidence in need of an explanation.
Let’s talk directed energy weapons (DEW). Here we have a Catch-22 situation whereby most of us can only speculate beyond our level of expertise and knowledge. Those with the credentials to talk knowingly would most likely reveal classified information and thereby violate top-secret or national security protocols and be held liable.
Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative that began in the early 1980s was not some glorified public works project for the overly educated with no expectation of producing something useful for the Department of Defence (DoD). What secret technology and exotic weapons resulted? On September 10, 2001 the DoD could not account for $2.3 trillion; where did it go and what did it pay for?
You dismiss directed energy weapons (DEW) too easily and what anomalous side-effects might be created by its energy source (e.g., nuclear devices, cold fusion, HAARP, hurricane Erin & Tesla Coils?) A key word in its description is ”directed.” They pointed it where they wanted the “energy” focused, like a microwave “weapon” that instantly heats the residual moisture or water molecules within content into steam whose rapid expansion builds pressure that blows apart the “container” of that water (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). “Dustification.” Pulverization. Recall that fragments of human remains were found in the dusty debris on rooftops of neighboring WTC buildings.
You do not do justice to the topic of DEW; or to Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook (“Where Did the Towers Go?”). 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.
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 ’60s. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960, so this is not out of the range of possibilities.)
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 (under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs) and aftermath. Tactical nuclear weapons and DEW exist; cold-fusion research is further than we’re told; they would not be withheld from the selection of tools, and were probably promoted heavily by generals to the planners and decision makers; the side-effects of such exotic weapons on, say, vehicles and metal are key and signature.
Here is how I would re-write your conclusion:
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.
By: Maxwell C. Bridges
Date: 2011-06-07
The recent article “AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?“ by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:
“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.”Really? Does the evidence actually support well the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis, and in particular nano-thermite, which was found in the dust at the WTC?
In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (wrongly) by the scientifically weaker yeomen of the 9/11 Truth movement to explain all (or most) of the observed destruction features.
Case in point – nano-thermite reaches 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; massive overkill amounts would be required.
(B) The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink. Again the math suggests massive overkill amounts.
(C) Is nano-thermite an incendiary useful for cutting, or an explosive that employs massive changes in air pressure to achieve destruction? As an incendiary, nano-thermite would be less than ideal to coordinate and generate the observed explosive energy of dustification. As an explosive, nano-thermite does not explain the steady and long burn of the under-rubble fires. Moreover, wouldn’t such explosives leave audible signatures and decibel levels that NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder confidently states weren’t present?
(D) Massive overkill amounts of nano-thermite (or conventional chemical incendiaries/explosives) under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(E) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain the anomalous damage to vehicles. How does nano-thermite explain unique burn patterns that seemingly “cooked off” things like plastic door handles and gas caps yet didn’t affect surrounding paper and other more easily combustible materials? In some cases, the fires appear to have originated inside the vehicle.
So if nano-thermite has been incorrectly extrapolated by the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to explain observed destruction features that it cannot, then we are left with a void that must be filled, evidence in need of an explanation.
Let’s talk directed energy weapons (DEW). Here we have a Catch-22 situation whereby most of us can only speculate beyond our level of expertise and knowledge. Those with the credentials to talk knowingly would most likely reveal classified information and thereby violate top-secret or national security protocols and be held liable.
Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative that began in the early 1980s was not some glorified public works project for the overly educated with no expectation of producing something useful for the Department of Defence (DoD). What secret technology and exotic weapons resulted? On September 10, 2001 the DoD could not account for $2.3 trillion; where did it go and what did it pay for?
You dismiss directed energy weapons (DEW) too easily and what anomalous side-effects might be created by its energy source (e.g., nuclear devices, cold fusion, HAARP, hurricane Erin & Tesla Coils?) A key word in its description is ”directed.” They pointed it where they wanted the “energy” focused, like a microwave “weapon” that instantly heats the residual moisture or water molecules within content into steam whose rapid expansion builds pressure that blows apart the “container” of that water (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). “Dustification.” Pulverization. Recall that fragments of human remains were found in the dusty debris on rooftops of neighboring WTC buildings.
You do not do justice to the topic of DEW; or to Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook (“Where Did the Towers Go?”). 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.
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 ’60s. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960, so this is not out of the range of possibilities.)
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 (under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs) and aftermath. Tactical nuclear weapons and DEW exist; cold-fusion research is further than we’re told; they would not be withheld from the selection of tools, and were probably promoted heavily by generals to the planners and decision makers; the side-effects of such exotic weapons on, say, vehicles and metal are key and signature.
Here is how I would re-write your conclusion:
“We support the DEW hypothesis because it is supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction does not address all of the evidence and requirements.”I encourage you to make another(?) thorough reading of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook and mine it for nuggets of truth.
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.
My comment refers to the author of "Where Did the Towers Go?"
ReplyDeleteShe contradicts herself in saying that the questions of "Who?" and "How?" are meaningless until you answer the question, "What happened?" Once she makes that valid point, the claims that researchers must answer the question, "HOW were the towers destroyed?" before proceeding to any other issue.
In point of fact, many "whats" happened. She's focusing on only one, claiming that it's the only one that matters, and demands that researchers prove how it happened.
In doing so, she's erecting barriers to research on 911.
Agreed, many "what's" happened.
ReplyDeleteBut I disagree that she focuses only on one. In fact, she is hard to pin down as definitively saying what exact mechanism(s) were involved. I have read her book (and highly recommend it to any serious researcher).
I don't believe that real planes hit the towers. And what evidence we have of this boils down to what we saw on the telly, video footage that can be (and was) faked. Among the "what's", we have "softening" explosions happening in basement areas timed with the supposed air plane impacts (more explosions). There after, what?
I used to believe that several milli-nuclear devices per tower pulverized them. Now thanks to Dr. Wood, I am in the camp that a few directed energy devices (possibly powered by cold fusion) pulverized the towers. How? They essentially directed a beam of microwave energy up/down that so excited the residual water molecules in content that they instantly turned to steam whose pressure then blew apart the "containers" for that water molecule from within ... dry wall, cement, humans (although vicSims plays into the death count). It explains why so little recognizable content was in the debris pile, and why when nano-thermite blew the bolts of the steel mesh walls, those walls fell with "smoke" trailing off of them. It wasn't really smoke. It was steam from within the drywall attached to the steel walls that left drywall particle trails. The steel walls in the debris pile were clean of such drywall.
Side-effects from the cold-fusion energy source can explain anomalous vehicle burn patterns.
The unreported massive hurricane off of NYC's coast would have been a convenient Teslan energy source for space-based DEW to bore a crater into WTC-6, bore-holes in WTC-5, and leveling WTC-4 main edifice at the line of the unaffected North wing...
No, rather than erecting barriers to research on 9/11, Dr. Wood is instead opening the door, asking the right questions, and allowing others to help fill in the blanks. If anything, she is helping slaughter the sacred cow of nano-thermite, because it comes up short in explaining the duration of under-rubble fires, the energy requirements pulverization, and the anomalous vehicle damage.
We agree M.C.! adtomeus in wisdom?
ReplyDelete