Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
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
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]