Outrageous 911 THEORIZER / Hypothesizer - Also Most Serious Violator / Offender of the Most-BASIC TENANTS of the Scientific Method as Applied to the Nuclear Explosive Pulverizations of the WTC Complex

Comment

Comment by Thoth II on September 24, 2014 at 3:11pm

I do not believe DEWs would have the amount of energy required to pulverize the concrete in the towers and vaporize the steel.  Only nukes could have done this job.  When confronted with this, Judy always replies that it is obvious that the DEWs had enough energy because the towers were indeed pulverized; in short , she begs the question.  She is not proposing a serious mechanism where she can describe how the device works.  Nukes explain all the evidence, and it would have been fairly easy to plant maybe 10 of them in each tower. 

Comment by James H. Fetzer on September 21, 2014 at 3:10am

Chuck, Here is my review of Judy's book on amazon.com, which has drawn over 5,000 comments!  She seems to me to violate the requirement of total evidence, namely, that scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. She disregards the USGS dust sample results and the 70,000+ New Yorkers who have suffered harms of kinds that come from exposure to ionizing radiation. Expand on your reasoning here.

Impressive but severely flawed argument by elimination, 

By 

James H. Fetzer

This review is from: Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11 (Hardcover)

Rather than advance a theory of her own, Judy Wood, Ph.D., has brought together an enormous quantity of high quality evidence that functions as a partial foundation for evaluating alternative explanations. What she has done has classically been referred to as a "prolegomenon", or as a prelude to further research. The word "indirect" belongs in her subtitle, since "Indirect Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11" is a less misleading and closer approximation.

She demonstrates that the Twin Towers cannot possibly have collapsed and that some massive source of energy was required to blow them apart and convert them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust. That also cannot have been done by thermite / thermate / nanothermite. She offers reasons for doubting that it was done by using nukes, but her arguments actually only rule out large nukes in the subbasements, not sophisticated arrangements of micro or mini nukes.

New evidence based upon the US Geological Survey's dust samples indicates that the destruction of the Twin Towers was primarily a nuclear event. The most important defect in her book is the failure to report or come to grips with the presence of Barium and Strontium, Thorium and Uranium, Lithium, Lanthanum, Yttrium, Chromium and Tritium, where she mentions the latter but inexplicably minimizes the values for Tritium that were obtained, which was scientifically irresponsible.

The idea that Directed Energy Weapons were used is seriously under-developed, where her strongest claim is that DEWs provide vastly more energy than conventional explosives and can be directed. Anyone familiar with the gross observable evidence knows the former to be true, where mini or micro nukes--not to mention a new positron anti-matter technology--satisfy both conditions. For the latest and best on how it was done, serious students should check out The Vancouver Hearings.

--James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth