9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

My response to a query from Shallel on Veterans Today

Submitted on 2013/05/11 at 7:04 am on VETERANS TODAY:

When you stop questioning and think you know the answer, SCIENCE STOPS.
When your pet theory becomes “Mystery Solved” Science is dead in the gutter.

There was NO incandescence; your proposal of nukes (8 million degrees) is therefore WRONG.

MY RESPONSE ON VETERANS TODAY AT 8:32 am on 2013/05/11:

Well, Shallel, I think you have missed some of the finer points about the use of these kinds of nukes, which I will invite Don, Ed or Jeff to explain. There is nothing "unscientific" about accepting conclusions in the tentative and fallible fashion of science. The four states of scientific inquiries are PUZZLEMENT (something does not fit into your background knowledge and appears anomalous), SPECULATION (the full range of alternative possible explanations must be given consideration), ADAPTATION (where each alternative is assessed in relation to the available relevant evidence using likelihood measures), and EXPLANATION (where the alternative with the highest likelihood is acceptable when the evidence has "settled down" and points in the same direction).

We consider the alternatives that the Twin Towers and WTC-6 collapsed; that they were destroyed by means of nanothermite; that they were demolished using DEWs; and that they were blown-apart using nukes, where we distinguish between small nukes and large ones. We have now published three articles about this,"9/11 Truth will out: The Vancouver Hearings II", "Mini Neutron Bombs: A Major Piece of the 9/11 Puzzle", and "Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked!" I presume you are OK in ruling out collapse theories, since if the building had collapsed, the probability that it would have blown apart in every direction from the top down, been converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust, and left no substantial stack of pancakes would have been equal to zero.

Similarly for nanothermite, which does not have the explosive capacity to pulverize concrete, much less decimate steel. It is a law of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if its detonation velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and, in steel, 6,100 m/s. So you can't get there from there. It is physically impossible that nanothermite was the cause of the destruction of the WTC, even though there are many who still want to ascribe to it a secondary or complementary role. I think that's fine, where I am inclined to believe it was used to create those "cookie cutter" cutouts resembling the silhouettes of planes on the facades of the North and South Towers.

The use of large nukes, such as Dimitri Khalezov has proposed, like the collapse theory, cannot even accommodate the gross observable evidence. The use of 150kt bombs in the subbasements of all three buildings would have meant they were all destroyed the same way, which is not the case. This theory would have required that all three buildings be destroyed the same way from the bottom up and, in the case of the Twin Towers, would have decimated the bathtub, the preservation of which appears to have been the most important reason for using a novel method of destruction. I infer that you will not contest that they were not destroyed the same way and that Khalezov is wrong, where there is no good reason to continue to entertain his alternative seriously, either.

That leaves DEWs and mini nukes. I presume that is your concern--that you are holding out for DEWs. I have explained many times that the definition that Judy Wood proposes for them--as devices that can deliver far more energy than conventional explosives and can be directed--includes mini and micro nukes, so if we are right, then it was DEWs after all, just not the kind of Tesla or scalar weapons she has in mind. I would like to think the blowing of a 300-ton steel assembly at least 600' into the Winter Garden counts strongly in favor of mini nukes and that DEWs cannot account for the contents of the USGS dust samples, including Barium and Strontium, Uranium and Thorium, Lanthanum and all that down to Tritium, though it is consistent with all that dirt.

The dust samples are the key. The probability that they would be produced by nuclear events is extremely high, approaching one. That they would be produced by non-nulclear events, including nanothermite or DEWs, is extremely low, approaching zero. So those who want to defend the DEW alternative have the obligation, given the proof we have adduced, of overcoming it. In advancing this conclusion, we are not denying that we might be wrong and that new evidence or new alternatives, such as the use of a proton anti-matter technology, might show us to be mistaken--which display the fallible and tentative character of conclusions in science--but that requires evidence and argument. So if you want to contend it was DEWs after all, please produce your proof.

Views: 209


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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on May 23, 2013 at 11:20am

my thought always was that the light and infrared emissions were absorbed by all of the dust, and we can't see it in the videos.  I still think it was nuked.

Comment by Shallel Octavia on May 23, 2013 at 11:08am

I take it that no-one wants to to address my questions.

1) How was  “1/3 of the Towers completely vaporized” without copious light and infrared emissions?

2) How would an EMP from a ground level mini-nuke toast metal cars and not fry all electronics in the area?

Comment by Shallel Octavia on May 13, 2013 at 6:12pm

Sorry about the Small Person thing! The actual quote was:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

- Eleanor Roosevelt 

Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on May 13, 2013 at 3:38pm

"Shallel, are you still, yet a big fan of Jewdy Wood?

If so, I understand why you may be still defending her and calling me a small person commenter, talkikng about other people, commenter". It is one of the most common forms of communication and sources of sometimes reliable information. If I remember correctly, you have been a criticizer of Dr. Steven Jones in a small commenting sort of way....

By the way, I am a bit small in physical stature (5'3"), but quite large and prominent in 911 Scientific reasoning, logic, and understanding, most especially when it comes of kicking the shit out of Jewdy Wood via about 20 hours of derision to the extreme on Jim Fetzer's radio show. Evidentally, Jim admires or at least tolerates my small, but frequents comments about other people, Jewdy Wood, a total asswipe of a credible 911Voodoo DEWs scientist


Only real non-scientists give her any DEWs credibility or hope she might be correct in her fantasy-land, Dreamworks, Holly(Wood)en DEWs theories...

Comment by Shallel Octavia on May 13, 2013 at 2:45pm

Chuck you are way off topic here. Do you have any answer to my query?

"Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people." Author: Unknown

Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on May 13, 2013 at 1:44pm

Every person that I have ever heard of having the last name of "Wood" is a Jew or of Jewish descent.

If I am wrong, then someone, anyone, please prove me wrong.......


Chuck Boldwyn


Comment by Chuck Boldwyn on May 13, 2013 at 1:35pm

Delete Comment

DEWs also cannot account for the iron spheroids, by the billions, found in all and every dust sample.

Jewdy's DEWs, acting without a heating mechanism should have produced billions of irreguarly shaped steel particles, not steel balls, not iron balls.

This part of Jewdy's DEWs theory in 100% trashed, totally debunked, now a comedy of theoretical thought processing errors, long, long time proven Jewdy utilizes less than Scientific Methodological thinking, logic, reasoning......

Jewdy Wood is a Zionist Scientific Clown, Fraud, Quack, Bullshitter of the First Class...

Comment by Shallel Octavia on May 13, 2013 at 12:44pm

I very much appreciate your patience and time. Please tell me where I am going wrong. As I understand this theory from Don’s explanation, these devices act though blast (shock wave) and heat, as well as neutron flux and EMP. The temperature required for fusion is 100 million K. Steel vaporizes over 3000 K.

How would this not be visible?

You give me a multiple choice of Nanothermite, DEWS, Large Nukes, and Small Nukes. Nanothermite is not capable of the result I agree, Large Nukes underground do not fit either, as the damage seems greatest farther up the towers, while people survived in Stairwell B on the fifth floor.

Small nukes, placed at intervals, would explain the beams and sections being ejected. The main problem would be high temperature as stated above. Also, EMP effects are generated by gamma ray flux producing high energy free electrons by Compton Scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These high energy electrons interact with the Earth’s Magnetic Field to form a very large coherently radiated field (The EMP).

DEWs, aren’t well understood. I have no intention to hold out for, or contend that it was DEWs since I have severely limited ability to gather any data on classified weapons.
So Jim, I will have to opt for none of the above.

I don’t see how you can say that the “mystery is solved”, or why you would want to make a statement like that.
Your explanation of the Stages of Scientific Inquiry are appreciated, I certainly mean no disrespect. I will keep an open mind, and continue to follow the work of Don, Ed and Jeff.

You are all doing important work!

Comment by Shallel Octavia on May 13, 2013 at 12:43pm

You are suggesting vaporized steel. “1/3 of the Towers completely vaporized” Vaporized steel is hotter that liquid steel. This is liquid steel:


I cannot fathom how 60,000 tons of steel was vaporized and there was nothing like the above seen.

Comment by Thoth II on May 13, 2013 at 11:07am

DEWs cannot account for the contents of the USGS dust samples, including Barium and Strontium, Uranium and Thorium, Lanthanum and all that down to Tritium, though it is consistent with all that dirt.

this dust evidence separates the DEW and mini nuke H's in terms of what they would predict.

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service