9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

New studies of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

All,

As it happens, I have been conducting a series of two-hour interviews with Chuck Boldwyn, 
a retired high-school physics, chemistry, and math teach, who is very smart and does his 
homework.  As a consequence of our interview today, which will be broadcast from 5-7 
PM/CT over revereradio.net, as I explain below, I have made the following post on a 
thread devoted to Judy's book on the DEEP POLITICS FORUM.

New studies of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?

James's methodological maxim (derived from Sherlock Holmes, of course), is quite right.  
New interviews I am currently doing with Chuck Boldwyn, a retired high-school physics, 
chemistry, and math teacher, are shedding new light on how to differentiate between 
Judy's theory of the case and alternative explanations.

Before I say more, I want to add that Chuck has also done exceptional work to explain why 
collapse theories, such as Jeffrey Orling's, cannot be correct.  Let me add a few 
comments about that first, where I will mention some of the posters Chuck uses to 
illustrate and explain his points at http://abbrv.co.uk/vdB                   


(1) Orling makes the assumption that every floor represents equal mass (steel) in 
comparison with every other, which is grossly false.  The steel diminished in its 
thickness from 6" in the basements to 1/4" at the top.  As poster #28 displays, for 
Orling to be correct, 1.4% of each building's mass would have to overcome 98.6%.

(2) Jeffrey has persistently ignored the key point that, if the fires had burned hot 
enough and long enough to weaken the steel, since the fires were asymmetrically 
distributed, there should have been a gradual asymmetrical sagging and tilting of those 
upper floors, not the complete, total and abrupt demolition which we observe.

(3) What he proposes, therefore, can be illustrated as follows.  Assume you had a stack 
of 50-cent pieces, say, welded together, and another stack of quarters atop of them, also 
welded together and to the stack below. If a small stack of dimes, welded together, were 
dropped on that massive stack, would a collapse ensue?

With regard to Judy's work, what Chuck is doing is going through the 43 assertions that 
constitute the summing up of the evidence that has to be explained, which are found on 
pages 480-484 of her book, and offering alternative explanations that, as he maintains, 
appear to offer simpler explanations of data she is misinterpreting.

(a) The first poster (as they are arranged today), shows that what Judy calls her 
"sillystrings" seem to actually be pieces of steel that are burning from thermite, which 
leave trails as they fall.  [I]The existence of chemical reactions like these, by the 
way, also puts the quietus to collapse theories based upon mechanical explanations.[/I]

(b) There is a crucial test of Judy's theory in the analysis of the dust samples that 
have been shown to include tiny iron spheres since, if Judy's right and it was done using 
DEWs, which turned the steel into dust, then those samples should include steel powder.  
If there is now steel powder in dust samples, her theory is wrong.

(c) The fuming that Judy so often cites may be more easily explainable as residue from 
the use of thermite, which cannot be extinguished by water because it has its own oxygen 
supply (Al2O3).  If Chuck is right, a huge quantity of thermite appears to have been used 
with some source of explosive energy, quite possibly mini-nukes.

(d) Similarly, what Judy offers as examples of other-than-by-DEW-unexplainable effects, 
such as the "fuzzballs" and the "toasted cars", appear to be effects of fuming from 
residual thermite and of tiny thermite particles hitting parts of the vehicles that are 
not fire retardant, as posters #9 and #9a explain, not to mention clothing that caught 
fire.

We have now had three two-hour programs that focus on WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?,

which are being archived on "The Real Deal", the most recent of which will be broadcast

tonight (5-7 PM/CT) over revereradio.net.  (Just click on the name of the program playing

and you should immediately access the show.)

Judy has maintained that WTC-7 and the Twin Towers were demolished using the same 
techniques, which is contradicted by the fact that all the floors of WTC-7 fell together 
and left a stack of pancakes about 12% the height of the original, while for the towers, 
their floors remained stationary and there were no pancake stacks.

 

Other differences between them include the enormous banana-plumes that were such

a spectacular sight and the ejection of massive steel assemblies for hundreds of feet

in several directions, which occurred with the Twin Towers but were absent at WTC-7.

What may be common between all three, however, is the extensive use of themite to prep 
the buildings for demolition--which may explain the massive fuming coming from one side 
of WTC-7--as well as the peculiar effects that Judy has noted, where mini-nukes can be 
arranged to bring about many patterns of effects.

Chuck's studies are convincing me that we may be close to figuring out how it was done by 
combining (i) Judy's compilation of the damage that has to be explained, (ii) the 
evidence of the use of thermite as an incendiary combined with (iii) some source of 
explosive energy, which I now think may have involved the use of mini-nukes.

The archives for "The Real Deal" may be found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com


[QUOTE=James Lewis;37602]Peter, the way I see it, it's like Sherlock Holmes 
said...detective work is about eliminating the the impossible...when you eliminate the 
[I]impossible[/I], whatever you have left, however [I]improbable[/I], must be the truth.

[QUOTE=Peter Lemkin;37595]In my own opinion, I have studied the entire case very 
carefully over the last many years. I feel the main destructive demolition force was via 
the use of computer timed and carefully pre-planted nano-thermate [or some similar 
substance]. That said, there are many features of the events and evidence that can't be 
explained by an exothermic explosive alone; and I do believe it very likely that in 
tandem some kind[s] of DEW might have been used and this needs more study. Just as there 
was enormous resistance to 'no plane' at the Pentagon [and that is now more or less 
gaining acceptance]; Just as there was great resistance to explosive planned demolition - 
and that is now becoming quite widely accepted; there is enormous resistance to any talk 
of DEW or other exotic weapons. They all need to be researched, if they seem to explain 
the events and evidence....and then either accepted or discarded. Many think that Wood is 
totally insane, more so that she uses whimsical names for strange features after the 
event. I do not find her at all strange. She is thinking out of the box..but the 'box' 
was the official cock and bullshit story - that almost everyone now rejects....or soon 
will. So many parts of the official story fall apart with a little 
study....correction...all parts of it fall apart.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Views: 44

Comment

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

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on April 22, 2011 at 6:50pm
Jim
I do believe you have the Midas touch, turning all your projects to gold over the last 20 years.  I'm getting the same vibes from the work you and Chuck are doing on 911 as I did when you worked with Mantik, etc. on JFK.  The unique scientific experts brought their expertise to bear on these subjects and you have the knowledge of scientific method to keep it all on track.  Great job.  Other people in 911 are special pleading or something like that, just rutting themselves into one track minded studies.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service