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: 208


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 13, 2013 at 11:05am

I love this application of the scientific method to solve the complex problem of what happened to the towers.  I am convinced this four stage process of science is the only way to arrive at "truth" in a matter of this sort.  Wish other 911 websites understood this; they basically engage in logical fallacies.

© 2020   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service