9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

More Good Stuff (Pro and Con) DEW and the Damage to the WTC . . .

Date:  Sat, 22 Jan 2011 10:14:43 -0600 [10:14:43 AM CST]
From:  "Jack & Sue White" <jwjfk@flash.net>

 

Unfortunately, many people claim unwarranted expertise about such matters as DEW or Mini-Nukes
without good reason. Many doubt certain energies exist simply because they are unfamiliar with them
or think they violate "known" technologies, or think those who have studied such matters are simply
"kooks". The only proper stance when you have no expertise is I DON'T KNOW.
Look at the image I am attaching. It shows the perimeter of the huge "hole" blasted in Building Six
by some monstrous explosion which penetrated 10 floors, yet left a clean edge. The edges are not
even scorched or burned or charred...NO SIGN OF HEAT at all. This would indicate some energy 
source of great power but negligible heat. The damage appears to be from the top down, slicing
neatly through steel and concrete all the way to the sub-basements, yet painted walls have no
fire or smoke damage. Is that what a mini-nuke would do? I do not think so.
I envision some sort of energy which causes molecular disassociation, causing materials to simply
FALL APART and COLLAPSE. I know nothing about such energy, but my eyes tell me it exists.
So it must.
 
Look at the photo, and imagine that what happened in Building Six happened in the Twin Towers,
and parts of it just started disintegrating as such energy penetrated, and you can see why the
towers fell. WITHOUT HEAT. Steel, concrete, furnishings, people...everything just turned to 
dust. How? I don't know. All I know is what I see.
Jack

On Jan 22, 2011, at 9:49:08 AM, Alex LLoyd wrote:

For the record, I created the "roadrunner silhouette into WTC" image for Judy.

I agree that she did a great job highlighting the complete destruction of the towers and the devastation at Ground Zero, which most 9/11 researchers had ignored. 

However, she went off the rails with the magical, mystical, mythical beam weapon/death ray theory.

The main problem with DEW is not that it doesn't exist, but the form that exists is completely incapable of the WTC phenomenon, and what you and Judy posit is a completely unknown form of physics.  Further, Judy's work has degenerated into gobblegook, sadly.

Yet another reason DEW at the WTC is impossible relates to deeper conspiracy of the real powers that be, and the fact that if they had such DEW, we would know because they would have escaped the planetary quarantine.  See the work of Anonymous Physicist.

Ultimately, the evidence supports mini-nukes, I think it is clear.

WTC Destruction Theories: "DEW" versus Thermite/Thermate/Super Ther... 
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/07/wtc-destruction-theories-...

"DEW Evidence" Actually Helps Prove Nukes at the WTC

http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com/2007/08/towards-end-of-one-91...

Eyewitness Testimony of Firefighters Believing They Were Nuked on 9/11

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/10/eyewitness-testimony-of-f...

Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:05:40 -0600
Subject: Re: Strobe lights
From: econrn@suddenlink.net
To: ueritemarg@gmail.com
CC: jwjfk@flash.netbrucerideout@yahoo.comCoffinman@ntlworld.comjfetzer@d.umn.edushure_dj@hotmail.comron_winn@lineone.netspooked911@hotmail.com;acebaker1234@yahoo.comjohnlear@cox.nethawks-cafe@hotmail.comwebfairy@thewebfairy.comdavidchaler@gmail.comjohnbursill@gmail.com;mr_thomas_potter@yahoo.comdhendrickson3@wi.rr.comavalonbeef@msn.combrick.michael@gmail.compoliticstahl@hotmail.comr_schaeffer@att.netrdority@sdwp.com;inphoman911@yahoo.comscottl44@yahoo.comjoseph_keith@att.netjoseph.keith@cox.netpilots@pilotsfor911truth.orgwstutt@warrenstutt.com

Who was her co-author for years?  Me.  She is a no planer.  Duh.  She created the Road Runner silhouette of passage on one of the towers, for instance.  She wanted to specialize in the destruction of the WTC, and just help behind the scenes on other issues (my interpretation).  From the moment of the 9/11 WTC destruction, she was fascinated by the WTC disintegration fraud, looking around at her engineering colleagues at Clemson in the faculty lounge and marveling at the acceptance, the passivity, nobody else commenting about anything wrong in towers turning to dust within 10 seconds.  Engineering professors!?

For her work, assembling a vast and unique data base to show what happened at the WTC crime scene that morning, she has caught hell from nearly everybody.  Nice.  That is confirmation by the ton that she is right on. 


On 1/21/11 7:34 PM, "Marg Uerite" a href="https://wm4.d.umn.edu/horde3/imp/message.php?mailbox=INBOX&index=54">ueritemarg@gmail.com> wrote:

Check out the interview with Judy Wood.
In case you all haven't heard it.

Talk about looking up and seeing nothing, Wood found witnesses who were in the third floor of the Staircase B in the ex-North Tower, who looked up to clear sky above them . No debris.

Yes, and to whoever was saying, "Why does anyone listen to Judy Wood , she is not even a "no planer" "...I heard second hand that she is, and on this interview she will tell you herself.

Red Ice radio out of Gothenberg Sweden, Henrik Palmgren interviewer..
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2011/01/RIR-110118.php
PC

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Morgan O. Reynolds a href="https://wm4.d.umn.edu/horde3/imp/message.php?mailbox=INBOX&index=54">econrn@suddenlink.net> wrote:
That’s what strobe lights there for, to be seen, day and night, especially by other pilots during flight!  John Lear points out that no 9/11 “airliner” image shows any strobe light flashes.  These must flash 40x to 100x per minute by FAA mandate, i.e., once in less than two seconds.  Those dastardly hijackers must have turned them off, another impossibility to add to the list.

Important proof, as if we needed more, that the digital airliner images are fake.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_light 
http://www.ehow.com/about_6665007_faa-requirements-wing_tip-strobes... 
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cf... 

On 1/21/11 3:18 PM, "Jack & Sue White" a href="https://wm4.d.umn.edu/horde3/imp/message.php?mailbox=INBOX&index=54">jwjfk@flash.net> wrote:

I live about 15 miles west of DFW airport, directly under E-W flights. The takeoff/landing lights are nearly always still
showing brightly both day and night until they reach flight altitude.


On Jan 21, 2011, at 2:56:34 PM, Ronald Wieck wrote:

Gee, that’s funny. When I look up on a sunny day at an overhead plane, I can’t see any lights. What human can?
 

Views: 97

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Mehmet Inan on January 23, 2011 at 12:43pm

Thoth said "I believe that mini nukes could still be invoked as an explanation for the desstruction of twin towers."

 

You reached the top level of disinfo. Mini nuclear bombs could difintely not be used to demolish the towers as it happened. There were no some ten or twenty strong bombs, but there were thousands of small explosives that were triggered sequentially to demolish the towers. All evidence proves that. Any bigger bomb or individual bombs are totally and definitely false.

 

The first people who understood the manner how the towers were demolished was Van Romero! He made that after he watched the videos of teh collapse to answer the questions of a journalist. Even if he changed his opinion, for what any reason it could be, he deserves congratulations.

 

If ten years after that, some so called scholars do not undersatnd the first opinion of Van Romero and they apropagate so many false crazy theories, that simply means those scholars are propagating disinfo. Their only will is creating confusion to make the events impossible to understand.

 

It's time to repeat the false disinfo theories that scholars are propagating:

- No Plane Theory: Totally debunked.
- Directed Energy Weapon: Totally debunked.
- Missile or military plane on the Pentagon: Totally debunked.
- Mini nuke bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.
- Hydrogen bomb demolishing each tower: Totally debunked.

Comment by Thoth II on January 22, 2011 at 12:19pm

Jack:

 

"

This would indicate some energy 
source of great power but negligible heat."
I sure give you credit , man, I saw you offering great commentary as early as the TMWKK series for the BBC.  I believe that mini nukes could still be invoked as an explanation for the desstruction of twin towers.  There is a concept in physical chemistry called "latent heat" such as the heat required to convert, say, liquid water into steam (540 cal/g), that absorbs all the energy to break the molecular bonds, but DOES NOT increase the temperature during the phase transition.  I believe 10-15 mini nukes buried near the core columns of the towers would have been akin to this latent heat situation.  It would have taken a great deal of energy to pulverize the towers into about 60 micron sized dust particles, Frank Greening cites a certain amount of energy to do this.  All the energy would have been absorbed in the pulverization process, and none would be left over to increase the temperature.  Thus mini nukes would be consistent with your above cited observation.
I never believed in DEW simply because of the symmetric ejection of fragments from the central core outward, DEW would have had a net momentum from the outside that would have caused assymetric ejection; plus I am very skeptical DEW would have absorbed into the steel, RF frequencies don't like metals, try putting a spoon into your microwave.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service