My theories on scalar/infrasound weapons are new, confusing and vague because we are dealing with a highly advanced psyop weapon.
I am not a scientist,
I am a photographer, videographer, video producer and have extensive training as an audio/visual engineer in TV STUDIOS. I can't explain my theories with hardcore physics because the weapons we are dealing with are stealth and highly advanced. I have photographed and captured these strange stealth UFOs all over Canada and am starting to understand what kind of technology we may be dealing with.
The UFOs on 9/11 in my opinion had many different objectives. Their purposes: *Surveillance *Optical Projections & *Weaponry (Exotic)
As for their function dealing with the explosions and fires, if you look at the naudet brothers 1st strike video you see strange birds flying around the impact zone just seconds after the crash. Also odd objects are filmed from many angles around the 2nd strike just as the 'plane' hits the towers. These objects look like large birds, though they are flying far too fast to be actual birds.
Now Chuck, I'm not saying you are wrong about your theory involving the mini-nukes. I feel you have alot of evidence on your side and that you are more than likely right, though there were far too many odd systematic coincidences going on on 9/11.
The Transportation Secretary on 9/11 was Norman Mineta, he has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin a sponsor of DEPS on 9/11. Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.
Also odd anomalies including Hurricane Erin and the strange weather effects around Lower Manhattan on 9/11 make it seem like the area was under some kind of controlled environment. Also if you look at the tower strikes and the collapse of the towers you see a systematic pattern in the events. The north tower was hit on the south side, the south tower was hit on the north side, the south tower fell from bottom to top, the north tower fell from top to bottom.
I believe this is evidence that some kind of systematic space weaponry was used.
For me Directed Energy/Scalar/Infrasound weaponry explains precisely how buildings 3,4,5 & 6 were damaged by what looks like some kind force from above, now we know that it wasn't falling debris so what else could it be ?
Plane shaped holes is what people saw that day, the media even reported it. Now the question can be asked, did people actually see it or was that more media fakery ?
I am not a scientist but I have formulated many arguments for the case that 'chemtrails' have nothing to do with planes spraying anything but that it is some kind of space based or ground based energy system that has many applications including, weather manipulation, crop circles, surveillance, optical illusions and can also be used as an offensive weapon.
Now there is photographic evidence of 'chemtrails' & scalar clouds all over the place on 9/11.
Tesla style Scalar Weapons used to HELP take down the towers (in addition to DEWs & MiniNukes), to make it look like planes hit the towers, to make it look like people were jumping out, to make them turn into dust. A wide variety of different devices were used to trigger molecular changes.
Chuck, understand that I also believe low yield tactical were used in the lower levels. I don't disagree with you, it's just I feel that this was a psyop terror attack and that many different weapons were used to keep the public chasing their tails trying to figure out what was done that day. This is why I feel it is very important not to get into the argument of 'one or the other'
I feel that there is evidence for: Mini-Nukes, Space Based Directed Energy Weapons, air based scalar/infrasound weapons & the possibility of minimal conventional explosives in the case of WTC 7.
I will be glad to look at your evidence and i'm sure it will be very compelling as, like I said, I am certain many different weapons were used on 9/11 and that Mini-Nukes were one of those weapons.
As you say about chemtrails, i feel that this is a highly advanced 'psyop' technology that actually looks like something that it is not. I feel that 'planes aren't spraying anything' and that what you are seeing is a molecular change in the structure of the air to create a 'circuit' for this energy. Like how plasma conducts electricity. Ionized air = plasma.
Anyways, yes i will listen to your mp3 and follow along and get back to you. Thanks.
Both Twin Towers feel from top to bottom, exactly the same and the mini nukes can explain the total collapses, total, of both towers and the other big holed buildings and maybe WTC 7, which could have been a regular demolition since gravity did much to assist it, but not the Twin Towers.
I am not dismissing your ideas, especially since you are so convinced that there is some connection there. I hope you can come up with some concrete proofs that can not be even remotely refuted. I leave all options open, but strongly favor my conclusions.
Take the time to review my paper and listen to my interview with Jim Fetzer. I am trying to get Jim to help me to get the leading scientists in the truth movement to also review my work. it is very, very simple and based of Vector Forces math, addition more to the point.
I understand where you are coming from. Please get back with me after reviewing my work.
The truth movement debunkers always ask for quantitative evidence for the collapses and no debater to date has been able to give it to them in any conculsive manner. That is what my work does give irrefutable quantitative evidence for energy equivalent to atomic bomb multiples and no contest support forces against gravity based collapse.
Your ideas and work are interesting and thought provoking, but keep working of the physics and physical and presentable evidence. Maybe you can team up with a strong physicist who works in these areas. I strong scientist on your side will give your theories much more credence as far as the public is concerned and the public is going to make and break this 911 criminal venture, once they can underestand it and the media allow it to come out or word of mouth finally lets the truthers be victorious.
Keep you your interesting and good work and I hope you can find out more in your future research...because we all want to know about these exotic things and events.
yea, you are 100% correct.
I do alot of research into these exotic technologies and the stealth/scalar/infrasound devices that may have been used on 9/11.
But you are exactly right, this stuff is very hard to prove.
The concrete scientific evidence holds far more water then vague theories based on photographic/video evidence, which has yet to be proven may or may not be 100% fake.
I do agree with you that it is important to keep this argument simple.
110 stories of steel and concrete x2 turned to dust in mid air within seconds, and left a debris pile of less than 2stories. That is impossible by means of conventional methods.
What I meant is that the towers collapse in a manner that the top blocks push down progressively from the top of the 94 floor block and the top of the 78 floor block. I am not considering the top or bottom of the top blocks or 16 floors and 32 floors. They wanted it to look like the top blocks crushed the bottom block by 100% gravity of weight forces.
It was an illusion of the top blocks crushing the botton blocks
If the top 16 floor block fell one floor or 4 meters, the energy needed to crush the bottom 94 block would have to be 52,000 time greater. The 32 floor block falling 4 meters would need to have an energy of 17,932 times greater that it was to collapse the lower 78 floor block.
That is what the physics of Vector Forces reveal. The collapse possibility is not even remotely close to happening, virtually impossible...
I'vew been lsitening to Fetzer for a long time and heard the interview he did with you. I wanted to know your opinion on the "impossible physics" of the plane interacting with the building. Is it really "impossible" as some seem to believe?
Thanks for the response. I guess you would have to beleive all the witnesses who saw the planes were lying and all the people who took video and pictures are part of the cover up. I would appreciate any explanation from you as to why the interaction between the plane and building is physically impossible so I could send it to a physicist I know to see what he has to say about it.
if i might butt in for a moment on your conversation, i think there's a really
good chance that other planes WERE in the area, but were not the supposed
hijacked airliners in the offishal story. because if missiles or scramjets or other
were used, they would have been launched by other planes.
also, i still think it would be quite an interesting study to map out the
angles and positions that 'witnesses' say they saw planes from, as they could
have seen other planes fly BY right when explosion occurred.
also, of course our perps would have made sure they installed a bunch
of wanna be witnesses to babble about planes, such as the turdballs on
the snuff film naudet doc 9/11.
I'm sorry if I came across a little too harsh, its just that I have been down the tv fakery road and it leads nowhere and so far there has been no evidence for it.
I will be very interested to see what you have to say after you get time to study the issue.
Dear Chuck,
question; what kind of ''device'' ( or is there a device known outside of jet black ops) that would/could make metals seem to ''jellyfy'' as if ''melted'' but then solidify in their warped form? Im talking about objects such as cars. Sorry dont have the physics lingo for this!
Chuck, I think your work is excellent. You tried to catch me when I was on my way to California at the invitation of Jesse Ventura to appear in a new segment of his TrueTV show, "Conspiracy Theory", on JFK. It was fairly rushed and I was unable to get back to you in a timely fashion. Let me know if there is anything you need from me. Best, Jim
hey, Chuck, what's up wid you?
last i heard you were going to China???? is it too personal
to axe what did you there? are you still there or back home?
i've missed your input in this group, hope that you are still
among us and that all is well with you.
thanks Chuck, for your message and pics. interesting stuff.
by the way, although i am no good whatsoever at stuff like
science and physics, i recognize the priceless value of what
folks with your kind of smarts add to our quest and i really
appreciate it even if i don't understand it!. glad you are still with the group, carry on!
Thank you for inviting me to comment. In fact, as I said in my initial comments, I really don't "do science". I never took anything but biology in high school, and only one year of that. I eventually "CLEP"ed out of 12 credits of biology to satisfy my undergrad science requirement. As far as physics: I am a fisherman, and I know what dynamics are involved to cast flies, or to stick a crankbait under an overhanging tree at 20 yards to snag a largemouth bass. All done with a flick of the wrist, and an understanding of how far a lure of a particular weight will travel. But the math behind that: I'm utterly ignorant. Just as I am regarding the dynamics of building collapse. I wish you all the very best of luck in explaining this to people who not only will understand, but who may have political power enough to properly investigate the phenomena involved.
I certainly have followed your work on the twin towers and think it is a great way to visualize how impossible the official pancake collapse lie is, from a physics viewpoint. I think we also share a belief that mini-nukes were likely the mode of destruction. Hope to hear you on real deal again someday.
Thanks, Chuck. As I say, I'm new posting and hope you'll bear with any faux pas i make. I've been quietly doing my homework and am just now coming out of the 'closet.'
Thank you for the welcome. I am a friend of Jim Fetzer and have been on his podcast talking about JFK material and 9/11 material (particularly Israeli/Jewish organized crime involvement in 9/11 and the issue regarding video fakery on 9/11). I have a bachelors degree in Political Science, did a year of law school that I hated, and I've been a private investigator in California for almost ten years now.
I have also started topics on 9/11 at jfkmurdersolved.com that have received a lot of attention...to the point that certain mystery forum members (trolls or spooks) have even called me anti-Semitic and a Nazi for simply stating facts. Here are links to the topics and their titles:
Israeli Involvement in 9/11 and Spying on the U.S.
I woke up to the whole Zionist and Jewish organized crime issue about two years ago. It took me a couple of months to wrap my brain around it, and then I started that topic at jfkmurdersolved.com
You can see how various mystery members responded to the information with a sense of hysteria. I call them mystery members because they were usually forum members I didn't know about or who joined relatively recently and started attacking the information without actually attacking the information. For example, they would say that I'm just against Jews or "anti-Semitic," and I would ask them why they say that. They would never tell me. They would only point to the mere fact that I was critical of Israel and putting information out there about 9/11 and Israeli fingerprints all over it.
I even tried pointing out to them that I have put up with all sorts of stereotypes about Italians without bellyaching about it and that if I was talking about Italian organized crime, nobody would have a problem with it. Of course, when I talk about Jewish and Zionist criminals, it's seems like a different ball game. They would never respond to that either.
They would just continue to accuse me of being an "anti-Semite." LOL I also agree with you that the word "Semite" and the word "anti-Semite" is not used properly. The mainstream media have warped the definition of those words. Then again, the mainstream media, it seems to me, also invented the phrase "Judeo-Christian." It almost makes it sound like the Jewish religion is some sort of grandfather to the Christian faith which it doesn't seem to be, in my opinion.
Am I over stepping by saying that? Feel free to talk me down a little. Sometimes I need a little education or a good talking to. LOL
Thanks for the warm welcome Chuck. I have been following your interviews on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer and recently completed Judy Wood's book. I look forward to delving more deeply into your respective theories of how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed.
I am a retired Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgeon with an interest in the JFK Assassination, 911 and the moral implications of public policy. Currently, I edit 2 blogs of possible interest to this group including:
I have written several pieces that address aspects of the medical history of Osama bin Laden in light of the allegedly new bin Laden videos recently released in the wake of Seal Team 6's purported execution of OBL. Here is a link to one FYI:
Debunking Judy Wood's work? How does that work? It doesn't and cannot because Dr. Wood is not a theorist, she is an evidence-gatherer. What evidence presented in "Where Did the Towers Go?" is false? Please be specific. Proof preferred for all propositions alleged to debunk Dr. Wood.
For those interested, please visit my blog, nomoregames.net While I'm at it, also go to www.judywood.com and wheredidthetowersgo.com for the REAL DEAL and what happened at the WTC on September 11, 2001.
Dr. Judy Wood has a DEW theory, according to Chuck. By contrast, he has "original research" which is "most convincing" to "many other people." Wow, quite an enviable situation for Chuck, although he could name his admirers to help us verify the last part of his claims. Or maybe we should just cast all such assertions aside following Shakespeare's admonition: “...it will come to pass that every braggart will be found an ass."
As to content: of course thermite/thermate, a welding material and incendiary, as agent of destruction at the WTC is totally bogus http://nomoregames.net/2012/01/14/collapse-of-the-thermite-thesis/. Mini-nukes as causal agent are not much better for lack of signature characteristics of nuclear explosions at the WTC as well as failure to demonstrate that nukes can produced the dozens of anomalous effects Dr. Wood documents at the WTC. Nuclear explosions produce temperatures in the millions of degrees, blinding light (literally), extremely powerful blast wave, etc., none of which were experienced or observed at the WTC. Conventlonal explosives and nukes destroy by sudden release of energy and just two facts by themselves falsify such explosives: impossibly low seismic readings and an undamaged WTC bathtub (1 million+ tons did not crash into the bathtub) which kept the Hudson river from flooding downtown Manhattan.
"The dominant effects of a nuclear weapon (the blast and thermal radiation) are the same physical damage mechanisms as conventional explosives, but the energy produced by a nuclear explosive is millions of times more per gram and the temperatures reached are in the tens of megakelvins. Nuclear weapons are quite different from regular weapons because of the huge amount of explosive energy they can put out and the different kinds of effects they make, like high temperatures and nuclear radiation." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion
"Mini-nukes as causal agent are not much better for lack of signature characteristics of nuclear explosions at the WTC as well as failure to demonstrate that nukes can produced the dozens of anomalous effects Dr. Wood documents at the WTC. "
Nukes do demonstrate conservation of momentum better than DEW in each twin tower. Watch how the debris is hurled upward and outward symmetrically around the towers, apparently from about 10 points equally spaced along the towers length. I think one nuke per second was detonated in sequence down the towers. The initial momentum was zero, and the final momentum of the ejecta was zero because each momentum vector had an equal but opposite one and +1 - 1 = 0 momentum after explosion. This is characteristic of exposives detonated from a point source. If a DEW with high power had hit the towers, the momentum of the DEW would not be zero but would be a net in one direction and the ejecta would have been blown over in that direction
"
Nuclear explosions produce temperatures in the millions of degrees, blinding light (literally), extremely powerful blast wave, etc., none of which were experienced or observed at the WTC. Conventlonal explosives and nukes destroy by sudden release of energy and just two facts by themselves falsify such explosives: impossibly low seismic readings and an undamaged WTC bathtub (1 million+ tons did not crash into the bathtub) which kept the Hudson river from flooding downtown Manhattan. "
According to Frank Greening, reference above, the total fracture energy to pulverize the concrete into 60 micron dust average was 6,700 Joules/kg with 50,000,000 kg of concrete per tower (plus there was ten times this mass of steel). That is a total fracture energy of 3.35 X 10 (10 power) Joules in 10 seconds for a required power to pulverize concrete of 3,350 megawatts. That is about the power output of the Hoover Dam, I've been to the Hoover Dam power station, that is pretty awesome. Could a DEW have gotten that much power from somewhere? (and this doesn't count the 10 tens mass of steel).
As for the heat, the energy of the nukes was eaten up by fracturing the concrete and vaporizing/hurling out the steel fragments. By first law of thermodynamics, the heat put in by the nukes could have gone into two places: work (it did by fracturing the steel and concrete), and increase in internal energy (by raising the temperature). But the designers made sure (1) the energy of each nuke got totally eaten by the work energy and none was left to increase the temp. (2) the shock wave did all the fracturing of the tower material and none was left to fracture the bathtub.
Of course, the towers were prepped like in Chuck Boldwyn's theory with thermite for 50 minutes so the nukes only had to destroy swiss cheesed out steel. The little holes around the complex were also blown out by nukes.
I'll concede on the momentum, I think maybe you are correct there are a brand of DEW that do not have momentum, the non-directional standing wave type.
I believe my calc. about the minimum power of 3000 MW is correct, and that is about Hoover Dam amount. I am just putting that out there because I am skeptical a DEW could have that much power.
As for the first law of TD, I do believe I am correct a nuke could be designed so the energy was eaten up in fracturing the concrete and not necessarily raising the temperature; since this has been raised as an objection to nuke.
sparkoflife
My theories on scalar/infrasound weapons are new, confusing and vague because we are dealing with a highly advanced psyop weapon.
I am not a scientist,
I am a photographer, videographer, video producer and have extensive training as an audio/visual engineer in TV STUDIOS. I can't explain my theories with hardcore physics because the weapons we are dealing with are stealth and highly advanced. I have photographed and captured these strange stealth UFOs all over Canada and am starting to understand what kind of technology we may be dealing with.
The UFOs on 9/11 in my opinion had many different objectives. Their purposes: *Surveillance *Optical Projections & *Weaponry (Exotic)
As for their function dealing with the explosions and fires, if you look at the naudet brothers 1st strike video you see strange birds flying around the impact zone just seconds after the crash. Also odd objects are filmed from many angles around the 2nd strike just as the 'plane' hits the towers. These objects look like large birds, though they are flying far too fast to be actual birds.
Now Chuck, I'm not saying you are wrong about your theory involving the mini-nukes. I feel you have alot of evidence on your side and that you are more than likely right, though there were far too many odd systematic coincidences going on on 9/11.
The Transportation Secretary on 9/11 was Norman Mineta, he has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society (DEPS). Mineta was Vice President of Lockheed Martin a sponsor of DEPS on 9/11. Mineta ensured minimal interference with the DEW by grounding as many commercial airliners as possible during the timeframe of the towers’ destruction.
Also odd anomalies including Hurricane Erin and the strange weather effects around Lower Manhattan on 9/11 make it seem like the area was under some kind of controlled environment. Also if you look at the tower strikes and the collapse of the towers you see a systematic pattern in the events. The north tower was hit on the south side, the south tower was hit on the north side, the south tower fell from bottom to top, the north tower fell from top to bottom.
I believe this is evidence that some kind of systematic space weaponry was used.
For me Directed Energy/Scalar/Infrasound weaponry explains precisely how buildings 3,4,5 & 6 were damaged by what looks like some kind force from above, now we know that it wasn't falling debris so what else could it be ?
Plane shaped holes is what people saw that day, the media even reported it. Now the question can be asked, did people actually see it or was that more media fakery ?
I am not a scientist but I have formulated many arguments for the case that 'chemtrails' have nothing to do with planes spraying anything but that it is some kind of space based or ground based energy system that has many applications including, weather manipulation, crop circles, surveillance, optical illusions and can also be used as an offensive weapon.
Now there is photographic evidence of 'chemtrails' & scalar clouds all over the place on 9/11.
Tesla style Scalar Weapons used to HELP take down the towers (in addition to DEWs & MiniNukes), to make it look like planes hit the towers, to make it look like people were jumping out, to make them turn into dust. A wide variety of different devices were used to trigger molecular changes.
Chuck, understand that I also believe low yield tactical were used in the lower levels. I don't disagree with you, it's just I feel that this was a psyop terror attack and that many different weapons were used to keep the public chasing their tails trying to figure out what was done that day. This is why I feel it is very important not to get into the argument of 'one or the other'
I feel that there is evidence for: Mini-Nukes, Space Based Directed Energy Weapons, air based scalar/infrasound weapons & the possibility of minimal conventional explosives in the case of WTC 7.
I will be glad to look at your evidence and i'm sure it will be very compelling as, like I said, I am certain many different weapons were used on 9/11 and that Mini-Nukes were one of those weapons.
As you say about chemtrails, i feel that this is a highly advanced 'psyop' technology that actually looks like something that it is not. I feel that 'planes aren't spraying anything' and that what you are seeing is a molecular change in the structure of the air to create a 'circuit' for this energy. Like how plasma conducts electricity. Ionized air = plasma.
Anyways, yes i will listen to your mp3 and follow along and get back to you. Thanks.
Jun 15, 2009
Chuck Boldwyn
I am not dismissing your ideas, especially since you are so convinced that there is some connection there. I hope you can come up with some concrete proofs that can not be even remotely refuted. I leave all options open, but strongly favor my conclusions.
Take the time to review my paper and listen to my interview with Jim Fetzer. I am trying to get Jim to help me to get the leading scientists in the truth movement to also review my work. it is very, very simple and based of Vector Forces math, addition more to the point.
I understand where you are coming from. Please get back with me after reviewing my work.
The truth movement debunkers always ask for quantitative evidence for the collapses and no debater to date has been able to give it to them in any conculsive manner. That is what my work does give irrefutable quantitative evidence for energy equivalent to atomic bomb multiples and no contest support forces against gravity based collapse.
Your ideas and work are interesting and thought provoking, but keep working of the physics and physical and presentable evidence. Maybe you can team up with a strong physicist who works in these areas. I strong scientist on your side will give your theories much more credence as far as the public is concerned and the public is going to make and break this 911 criminal venture, once they can underestand it and the media allow it to come out or word of mouth finally lets the truthers be victorious.
Keep you your interesting and good work and I hope you can find out more in your future research...because we all want to know about these exotic things and events.
Jun 15, 2009
sparkoflife
yea, you are 100% correct.
I do alot of research into these exotic technologies and the stealth/scalar/infrasound devices that may have been used on 9/11.
But you are exactly right, this stuff is very hard to prove.
The concrete scientific evidence holds far more water then vague theories based on photographic/video evidence, which has yet to be proven may or may not be 100% fake.
I do agree with you that it is important to keep this argument simple.
110 stories of steel and concrete x2 turned to dust in mid air within seconds, and left a debris pile of less than 2stories. That is impossible by means of conventional methods.
Do you use skype ? use any kind of email ?
Jun 15, 2009
sparkoflife
If you look, the south tower when it goes, the top of the building falls over, after the bottom starts to go.
the north tower,
the top of the building starts to sink before the rest of the building, almost initiating whatever was below, near the impact zone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKHgwLWVZEM
Jun 15, 2009
Chuck Boldwyn
It was an illusion of the top blocks crushing the botton blocks
If the top 16 floor block fell one floor or 4 meters, the energy needed to crush the bottom 94 block would have to be 52,000 time greater. The 32 floor block falling 4 meters would need to have an energy of 17,932 times greater that it was to collapse the lower 78 floor block.
That is what the physics of Vector Forces reveal. The collapse possibility is not even remotely close to happening, virtually impossible...
Jun 15, 2009
John Doe
I'vew been lsitening to Fetzer for a long time and heard the interview he did with you. I wanted to know your opinion on the "impossible physics" of the plane interacting with the building. Is it really "impossible" as some seem to believe?
May 22, 2010
John Doe
Thanks for the response. I guess you would have to beleive all the witnesses who saw the planes were lying and all the people who took video and pictures are part of the cover up. I would appreciate any explanation from you as to why the interaction between the plane and building is physically impossible so I could send it to a physicist I know to see what he has to say about it.
Thanks,
Jeff
May 24, 2010
sandy rose
good chance that other planes WERE in the area, but were not the supposed
hijacked airliners in the offishal story. because if missiles or scramjets or other
were used, they would have been launched by other planes.
also, i still think it would be quite an interesting study to map out the
angles and positions that 'witnesses' say they saw planes from, as they could
have seen other planes fly BY right when explosion occurred.
also, of course our perps would have made sure they installed a bunch
of wanna be witnesses to babble about planes, such as the turdballs on
the snuff film naudet doc 9/11.
May 24, 2010
John Doe
I'm sorry if I came across a little too harsh, its just that I have been down the tv fakery road and it leads nowhere and so far there has been no evidence for it.
I will be very interested to see what you have to say after you get time to study the issue.
Thanks,
Jeff
May 25, 2010
John Doe
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3358484/
May 26, 2010
laurence de mello
question; what kind of ''device'' ( or is there a device known outside of jet black ops) that would/could make metals seem to ''jellyfy'' as if ''melted'' but then solidify in their warped form? Im talking about objects such as cars. Sorry dont have the physics lingo for this!
Jun 8, 2010
James H. Fetzer
Jun 26, 2010
sandy rose
last i heard you were going to China???? is it too personal
to axe what did you there? are you still there or back home?
i've missed your input in this group, hope that you are still
among us and that all is well with you.
Sep 17, 2010
sandy rose
by the way, although i am no good whatsoever at stuff like
science and physics, i recognize the priceless value of what
folks with your kind of smarts add to our quest and i really
appreciate it even if i don't understand it!. glad you are still with the group, carry on!
Sep 27, 2010
William P. Homans
Thank you for inviting me to comment. In fact, as I said in my initial comments, I really don't "do science". I never took anything but biology in high school, and only one year of that. I eventually "CLEP"ed out of 12 credits of biology to satisfy my undergrad science requirement. As far as physics: I am a fisherman, and I know what dynamics are involved to cast flies, or to stick a crankbait under an overhanging tree at 20 yards to snag a largemouth bass. All done with a flick of the wrist, and an understanding of how far a lure of a particular weight will travel. But the math behind that: I'm utterly ignorant. Just as I am regarding the dynamics of building collapse. I wish you all the very best of luck in explaining this to people who not only will understand, but who may have political power enough to properly investigate the phenomena involved.
Godspeed,
Bill Homans
Oct 4, 2010
Thoth II
Chuck,
I certainly have followed your work on the twin towers and think it is a great way to visualize how impossible the official pancake collapse lie is, from a physics viewpoint. I think we also share a belief that mini-nukes were likely the mode of destruction. Hope to hear you on real deal again someday.
Dec 23, 2010
Allan Weisbecker
Thanks, Chuck. As I say, I'm new posting and hope you'll bear with any faux pas i make. I've been quietly doing my homework and am just now coming out of the 'closet.'
More to come.
allan
Jan 8, 2011
Dr Paul Smith
Hi Chuck. Thanks for the warm welcome. I am a humanities PhD, but also a publisher. I lok forward to reading up on issues on the site.Rgds to all
Jan 9, 2011
Pasquale DiFabrizio
Chuck,
Thank you for the welcome. I am a friend of Jim Fetzer and have been on his podcast talking about JFK material and 9/11 material (particularly Israeli/Jewish organized crime involvement in 9/11 and the issue regarding video fakery on 9/11). I have a bachelors degree in Political Science, did a year of law school that I hated, and I've been a private investigator in California for almost ten years now.
I have also started topics on 9/11 at jfkmurdersolved.com that have received a lot of attention...to the point that certain mystery forum members (trolls or spooks) have even called me anti-Semitic and a Nazi for simply stating facts. Here are links to the topics and their titles:
Israeli Involvement in 9/11 and Spying on the U.S.
http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1261
Strong Evidence of Fake Planes and a Media Hoax on 9/11
http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2005
Other than doing this sort of research and writing/debating, I work and pay bills like everyone else. ;)
Mar 29, 2011
Pasquale DiFabrizio
I woke up to the whole Zionist and Jewish organized crime issue about two years ago. It took me a couple of months to wrap my brain around it, and then I started that topic at jfkmurdersolved.com
You can see how various mystery members responded to the information with a sense of hysteria. I call them mystery members because they were usually forum members I didn't know about or who joined relatively recently and started attacking the information without actually attacking the information. For example, they would say that I'm just against Jews or "anti-Semitic," and I would ask them why they say that. They would never tell me. They would only point to the mere fact that I was critical of Israel and putting information out there about 9/11 and Israeli fingerprints all over it.
I even tried pointing out to them that I have put up with all sorts of stereotypes about Italians without bellyaching about it and that if I was talking about Italian organized crime, nobody would have a problem with it. Of course, when I talk about Jewish and Zionist criminals, it's seems like a different ball game. They would never respond to that either.
They would just continue to accuse me of being an "anti-Semite." LOL I also agree with you that the word "Semite" and the word "anti-Semite" is not used properly. The mainstream media have warped the definition of those words. Then again, the mainstream media, it seems to me, also invented the phrase "Judeo-Christian." It almost makes it sound like the Jewish religion is some sort of grandfather to the Christian faith which it doesn't seem to be, in my opinion.
Am I over stepping by saying that? Feel free to talk me down a little. Sometimes I need a little education or a good talking to. LOL
Mar 29, 2011
Dr. J. P. Hubert
Thanks for the warm welcome Chuck. I have been following your interviews on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer and recently completed Judy Wood's book. I look forward to delving more deeply into your respective theories of how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed.
I am a retired Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgeon with an interest in the JFK Assassination, 911 and the moral implications of public policy. Currently, I edit 2 blogs of possible interest to this group including:
http://moralphilosophyofcurrentevents.blogspot.com/
and
http://jfkassassinationconspiracyupdate.blogspot.com/
I have written several pieces that address aspects of the medical history of Osama bin Laden in light of the allegedly new bin Laden videos recently released in the wake of Seal Team 6's purported execution of OBL. Here is a link to one FYI:
http://moralphilosophyofcurrentevents.blogspot.com/2011/05/problems...
John Hubert
May 12, 2011
Morgan Reynolds
Thank you for the welcome, Chuck.
Debunking Judy Wood's work? How does that work? It doesn't and cannot because Dr. Wood is not a theorist, she is an evidence-gatherer. What evidence presented in "Where Did the Towers Go?" is false? Please be specific. Proof preferred for all propositions alleged to debunk Dr. Wood.
For those interested, please visit my blog, nomoregames.net While I'm at it, also go to www.judywood.com and wheredidthetowersgo.com for the REAL DEAL and what happened at the WTC on September 11, 2001.
More to come from yours truly.
--Best regards, Morgan
Jan 13, 2012
Morgan Reynolds
Dr. Judy Wood has a DEW theory, according to Chuck. By contrast, he has "original research" which is "most convincing" to "many other people." Wow, quite an enviable situation for Chuck, although he could name his admirers to help us verify the last part of his claims. Or maybe we should just cast all such assertions aside following Shakespeare's admonition: “...it will come to pass that every braggart will be found an ass."
As to content: of course thermite/thermate, a welding material and incendiary, as agent of destruction at the WTC is totally bogus http://nomoregames.net/2012/01/14/collapse-of-the-thermite-thesis/. Mini-nukes as causal agent are not much better for lack of signature characteristics of nuclear explosions at the WTC as well as failure to demonstrate that nukes can produced the dozens of anomalous effects Dr. Wood documents at the WTC. Nuclear explosions produce temperatures in the millions of degrees, blinding light (literally), extremely powerful blast wave, etc., none of which were experienced or observed at the WTC. Conventlonal explosives and nukes destroy by sudden release of energy and just two facts by themselves falsify such explosives: impossibly low seismic readings and an undamaged WTC bathtub (1 million+ tons did not crash into the bathtub) which kept the Hudson river from flooding downtown Manhattan.
"The dominant effects of a nuclear weapon (the blast and thermal radiation) are the same physical damage mechanisms as conventional explosives, but the energy produced by a nuclear explosive is millions of times more per gram and the temperatures reached are in the tens of megakelvins. Nuclear weapons are quite different from regular weapons because of the huge amount of explosive energy they can put out and the different kinds of effects they make, like high temperatures and nuclear radiation." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion
Also see pp. 121-2 in http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/ by Dr. Wood.
Jan 15, 2012
Thoth II
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf ( a background paper about energy transfer by Dr. Frank Greening
"Mini-nukes as causal agent are not much better for lack of signature characteristics of nuclear explosions at the WTC as well as failure to demonstrate that nukes can produced the dozens of anomalous effects Dr. Wood documents at the WTC. "
Nukes do demonstrate conservation of momentum better than DEW in each twin tower. Watch how the debris is hurled upward and outward symmetrically around the towers, apparently from about 10 points equally spaced along the towers length. I think one nuke per second was detonated in sequence down the towers. The initial momentum was zero, and the final momentum of the ejecta was zero because each momentum vector had an equal but opposite one and +1 - 1 = 0 momentum after explosion. This is characteristic of exposives detonated from a point source. If a DEW with high power had hit the towers, the momentum of the DEW would not be zero but would be a net in one direction and the ejecta would have been blown over in that direction
"
Nuclear explosions produce temperatures in the millions of degrees, blinding light (literally), extremely powerful blast wave, etc., none of which were experienced or observed at the WTC. Conventlonal explosives and nukes destroy by sudden release of energy and just two facts by themselves falsify such explosives: impossibly low seismic readings and an undamaged WTC bathtub (1 million+ tons did not crash into the bathtub) which kept the Hudson river from flooding downtown Manhattan. "
According to Frank Greening, reference above, the total fracture energy to pulverize the concrete into 60 micron dust average was 6,700 Joules/kg with 50,000,000 kg of concrete per tower (plus there was ten times this mass of steel). That is a total fracture energy of 3.35 X 10 (10 power) Joules in 10 seconds for a required power to pulverize concrete of 3,350 megawatts. That is about the power output of the Hoover Dam, I've been to the Hoover Dam power station, that is pretty awesome. Could a DEW have gotten that much power from somewhere? (and this doesn't count the 10 tens mass of steel).
As for the heat, the energy of the nukes was eaten up by fracturing the concrete and vaporizing/hurling out the steel fragments. By first law of thermodynamics, the heat put in by the nukes could have gone into two places: work (it did by fracturing the steel and concrete), and increase in internal energy (by raising the temperature). But the designers made sure (1) the energy of each nuke got totally eaten by the work energy and none was left to increase the temp. (2) the shock wave did all the fracturing of the tower material and none was left to fracture the bathtub.
Of course, the towers were prepped like in Chuck Boldwyn's theory with thermite for 50 minutes so the nukes only had to destroy swiss cheesed out steel. The little holes around the complex were also blown out by nukes.
Jan 16, 2012
Thoth II
Shallel,
I'll concede on the momentum, I think maybe you are correct there are a brand of DEW that do not have momentum, the non-directional standing wave type.
I believe my calc. about the minimum power of 3000 MW is correct, and that is about Hoover Dam amount. I am just putting that out there because I am skeptical a DEW could have that much power.
As for the first law of TD, I do believe I am correct a nuke could be designed so the energy was eaten up in fracturing the concrete and not necessarily raising the temperature; since this has been raised as an objection to nuke.
Jan 16, 2012