Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
If there is to be a discussion of nuclear (fission) versus some kind of directed energy weapon used to destroy the Twin Towers, it will have to happen here, because I can assure you that any "mainstream 9-11 truth movement" discussions that will take place in the next few months, leading up to 9-11-11, will probably be to force us into discussing Building 7 and a call for a new independent 9-11 investigation. That is where we are being herded now.
(I recall someone giving an estimate of how much regular high explosives would be needed in a Tower if it were the exclusive agent. It was a huge amount. I will search around in my records for that information.)
One thing that I have always wondered is why they had to do pre-explosions in the sub-basements of the towers if directed energy weapons were so effective that they are said to have been capable of taking out the whole building, as Dr. Wood maintains. I do take it as fact that these pre-explosions happened,
The Columbia University seismic labs, not far from the World Trade Center did record two seismic events that happened like 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE the alleged plane crashes.
I think Dr. Wood prefers to claim that Directed Energy Weapons could have and would have done the ENTIRE destruction job, and implies that pre-explosions using traditional high explosives would not have been needed.
I also tend to think that if fission type mini-nukes were used, they probably could have been placed in such a way so as not to need to first loosen the bedrock and foundational areas of the core beams with explosives. But even if that step were necessary, it seems that they would have used mini-nukes there too and not regular explosives. But if mini-nukes were used to do those pre-explosions, there are quite a few people who were in those sub-basements when those pre-explosions happened and they would probably not be alive today from having received too large a dose of radiation, but they are alive.
In my way of thinking, those pre-explosions in the sub-basement argue for standard high explosives and standard controlled demotion for the entire building such as the WillyLoman Wordpress site hypothesizes, not mystery nano-thermite type, not nukes, and not DEWs.
Dr. Hubert says there is considerable evidence for mini nukes. I still wonder about the pre-explosions, why they were done, why they were needed if they were, and how they were done. I think Chuck Boldwyn says they were neutron bombs and those are known to "take out" organic material (like human beings) but not inorganic matter, such as the buildings. Guess I need more info about that.
Just thinking out loud here but one thing I do see is that the event was a "wow" event. We do not have a record in history of similar size buildings being destroyed in that manner and in that amount of time. It is hard to understand how they could have done such a perfect job if that kind of job had never been ever actually done before. Seems it was real important that surrounding buildings and the whole of lower Manhattan was not to be destroyed and somehow they knew advance that the way they were going to do the job was not possibly going to do much of that collateral damage. That just seems so odd to me. They did a big job in an amazing way and they knew exactly how it would play out. The bath tub problem comes to mind here. There were only minor fractures in the bath tub. Don't know how they were so sure that problem would not present itself. After all, we're dealing with huge explosions. Even if the weight of the buildings did not fall on to the bathtub, those explosions to me well could have caused the bathtub to crack open.
I myself think they could have engineered this building destruction according to the specifications. They just got their best scientists and engineers and worked the engineering out, I believe they could have done it very well.
See, what really, really disturbs me now that I've studied this stuff probably since JFK is I am now beginning to realize something I misjudged before. Let's take Gary Mack as a case study. He clearly was one of the leading JFK researchers and was very honest. But he lost a job and the dark side took full advantage of this. They knew they could "BUY" his service, and boy did he deliver big, big time for them. I am beginning to realize that far from buying the dumbest brains, they have bought the BEST brains. What I misjudged was, I was assuming that the smartest people were the most moral. This is not the case. The smartest people CAN be bought, and that is exactly why the oligargarchs have gotten so far. And 99% of the public is dumbed down, these smart hired guns can outsmart those sheep so very easily.
"I was assuming that the smartest people were the most moral. This is not the case."
I don't know how much being smart is correlated with morality, but I think people who refuse to see that 9-11 was an inside job are immoral. Honest open debate is a big part of all truth seeking. Then when we find some truth, we need to hold it up high, not sell it out.
Thanks Jeannon for starting a separate thread on this topic. I want to respond to a few of the existing comments. Jeannon, you wrote:
"One thing that I have always wondered is why they had to do pre-explosions in the sub-basements of the towers if directed energy weapons were so effective that they are said to have been capable of taking out the whole building, as Dr. Wood maintains. I do take it as fact that these pre-explosions happened,"
I think you are correct that there is too much testimony from witnesses that "pre-explosions" occured in the sub-basements of the towers to discount it. I have never found a way to contact Dr. Wood and I do not know if she categorically stated that no "pre-explosions" took place. I have her book but there is no index which makes it difficult to be sure.
With regard to the following comment Jeannon, I disagree:
"In my way of thinking, those pre-explosions in the sub-basement argue for standard high explosives and standard controlled demotion for the entire building such as the Willy Loman Wordpress site hypothesizes, not mystery nano-thermite type, not nukes, and not DEWs."
I doubt that any conventional controlled or uncontrolled demolition of a high rise building has ever produced the kind and quality of dust that was created in the destruction of each Twin Tower. If I am wrong about that, I would be happy to change my mind. If anyone can document such a case, I would appreciate it. I await the precise computation of the quantity of conventional explosive alone that would have been needed to destroy each Twin Tower. In order to error on the side of caution, assume that each tower weighed 200,000 tons. Dr. Wood stated in her book I believe that each Twin Tower weighed 500K tons. Since it does not appear that conventional explosives could create the many effects seen, the analysis should include a computation of how much conventional explosive would be needed to destroy each Twin Tower in a standard controlled demolition (implosion) fashion.
Thoth II, we need a computation of how much actual physical explosive (conventional) would be required to implode each Twin Tower. Presumably it would be thousands of pounds that is tons given the weight and height of each Tower. Maybe we can find out how much was used in a known demolition in which the weight and size of the building were published and for ease of handling, simply scale up the explosive weight used for a building the size and weight of the Twin Towers.
Here is part of my post from the other thread on this issue:
"... There is simply too much evidence which demonstrates that both Twin Towers were totally destroyed as a result of enormous explosive energy releases completely unlike the standard implosion type controlled demolitions seen in the intentional destruction of high-rise buildings; a difference in type or kind not just in degree.
No one to my knowledge has produced an example of a high-rise demolition (controlled or otherwise) in which so much of the building's mass was converted to dust. That remains the elephant in the room. What mechanism is capable of performing that kind of work? Even if it is assumed that an astronomical amount of conventional (RDX, HMX, PETN etc.) explosives were utilized to destroy each Twin Tower, there is no historical precedent for so much of a high rise building’s concrete being literally pulverized into fine dust.
Perhaps Mark or some other chemical or demolition engineer with the requisite expertise could perform the calculation for us of how many tons of conventional explosive would be required to completely destroy the Twin Towers—for completeness sake this calculation should be produced. Presumably the amount involved would be incompatible with clandestine placement inside each building without being discovered."
With respect to the issue of morality and intelligence, my experience in medicine has been that immorality is widespread especially among the most educated and those who hold positions of importance. The system now literally demands it and those who wish to keep their jobs seem to willingly oblige. Whether this is true in every other discipline I cannot say from professional personal experience, but I think it is a universal problem at least in the so-called "developed world."
"I await the precise computation of the quantity of conventional explosive alone that would have been needed to destory each Twin Tower."
I, for some reason am getting an error message and am unable all of my many 9-11 files that I have in one folder. This is extremely frustrating. I have tried several ways to get in to the files and I have the correct file names and they do exist but cannot open them. Get Windows Error Message that says" Windows cannot find. Then gives the full path / file name. Make sure you typed the name correctly and then try again." Any tips on what I need to do to access my files would be appreciated.
I did fine a few things that seem related to amounts needed to plant in building...
One of the "smoking guns" of 9/11 thus turns out to be the billowing black cloulds of smoke, which indicate that these fires were oxygen-depleted and therefore were not burning at high temperatures.
Fetzer says Dr. Jones says
“beyond the impact of the planes and the modest fires required tremendous energy of precisely the kind produced by controlled demolitions. His best guess as to the explosives used is that they were probably an enhanced form of thermate.”
Indeed, there are multiple reports of unusual "security lapses" in the Twin Towers during the two weeks before 9/11. Sections of floors were shut off and normal security practices were breached, while teams of "engineers" were given free access. Professor Jones has estimated that it would have taken 40 men only 10 trips each to plant sufficient thermate to bring one of them down.
Transcript: The Dynamic Duo radio show of May 17, 2007, Genesis Communications Network – www.gcnlive.com.
Dr. Fetzer critiqued a 2007 study of Dr. Jones published in the online only Journal of 9-11 studies, I think the first official "research paper" put out by Dr. Jones. The following of quotes from the paper that Dr. Fetzer talks about as well as Dr. Fetzer's comments.
“An investigation well beyond the scope of this paper would look for
purchases of aluminum and iron-oxide powders (and sulfur) in multi-ton-quantities prior to 9/11/2001.”
Steven Jones quote re. his 2007 first paper
That supports the interpretation that what he is actually saying here without saying it is that 10 tons of thermite was involved. Ten tons of thermite. Ten tons. That’s a whole lot more than the, what, the 3000 pounds of RDX that he was suggesting could have been used on the buildings in his previous great article. O K, about how did the World Trade Center buildings completely collapse [Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?] when it didn’t collapse and he’s only talking about the north and the south tower.
"I doubt that any conventional controlled or uncontrolled demolition of a high rise building has ever produced the kind and quality of dust that was created in the destruction of each Twin Tower."
The ONLY reason I thought conventional explosives use in the sub basements argues for conventional explosives throughtout was that if they had to use conventional explosives for some part of the job, they must have been confined to their use since it seems that mini nukes could have been used for the pre-explosive step of their plan.
As for the fine dust, there probably does not exist evidence of controlled demos producing very fine dust. I have some old material where Dr. Jones is trying to say the dust was really not so very fine, but can't access it right now. But anyway, do we have any historical evidence where mini-fission nukes produced the same fine dust from destroying a building? That would be very helpful to have.
"my experience in medicine has been that immorality is widespread especially among the most educated and those who hold positions of importance. The system now literally demands it and those who wish to keep their jobs ablige. Whether this is true in every other discipline I cannot say from professional personal experience, but I think it is a universal problem at least in the so-called "developed world."
I think it exists in every discipline and also exists in even the lowest paid occupations. People are desperate to hold on to their jobs. Academics and professionals have invested so much of their lives in their education and they know they can have their careers ruined for life. It has happened to many many people.
Treating people like objects and commodities is quite immoral as is out-of-control greed for money and profit. But that is the "system" we all live in. We have to drop out of it, mentally and physically. That is the only effective fight we can wage.
“‘Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet
your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? … Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all
his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which
today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O
men of little faith?’” (Matthew 6:28, 28-30)
"But anyway, do we have any historical evidence where mini-fission nukes produced the same fine dust from destroying a building? That would be very helpful to have.I will try to search for evidence of this but doubt I will find any."
Yes, it would be very helpful. I will do a search but I doubt it has ever been done where it was witnessed and publicized.
A similar kind of fine dust-like effect has been documented with the underground exploding of nuclear bombs but that is not strictly speaking comparable. Either the Anonymous Physicist or William Tahil I believe wrote about it. I will have to check their writings again.
I'm not exactly sure why Dimitri Khalezov's explanation was completely dismissed a couple of months back. Maybe it was
because of his proposal of one large 150KT bomb to bring the whole tower down at once. I think there absolutely had to have
been large nukes under the towers to create such huge cavities of melted granite (quartz and feldspar) and leaving high levels
of barium and strontium in the dust.
. Trying to identify the exact sequence of the big booms should help clarify the method used. Is it possible the first
boom could blow a cavity under the tower without the tower falling? I don't think so. The second boom blew the cut-outs and created black
smoke for the people to see. I like Dr Fetzer's idea of the first explosion to drain the sprinkler water, but it seems like something else must have been happening too. The cleanup workers had to pump thousands of yards of concrete into the cavities to cut
down on the radiation and fill the holes. Before the towers fall, there is a rumble and the buildings shake. A fireball is seen
about 20 floors from the top. I personally think this is when the big nuke goes off. If the nukes were placed under the buildings before construction (~100ft deep), the granite absorbs most of the radiation and creates a hole for stuff to fall into. By burying the bomb deep enough, maybe they were able to avoid damaging the bathtub. Maybe some kind of
focussing technique could have been used to protect the bathtub.
I have a 2007 from Dr. Judy Wood that says "“When you consider the extent of the devastation of the World Trade Center, the very modest damage to its foundation,..."
So she is saying very modest damage to the foundation of the WTC complex, so I assume she is talking about the "bathtub." I also understand there were some retail stores and other large rooms in underground tunnels or pathways very near the Twin Towers if not directly beneath them in subbasement levels where photos were taken after the event that show the stores and the items for sale in the store undisturbed or relatively undisturbed.
"to create such huge cavities of melted granite (quartz and feldspar)"
This is the first time I have heard it suggested that it was melted granite that made up the "pools" that last for several weeks. I have always heard it either claimed as "molten metal" of very very high temperatures, or some other phenomena, as Dr. Wood suggests, that does not demonstrate high heat, or heat at all. If it was melted granite, would need to know the temperature that may have required and could that have lasted for 5 weeks or more.
The high levels of strontium in the dust is something we need to document in this thread, as well as the tritium.
I still would like to know what those what I call "pre-explosions" had to happen. There is the seismic evidence which I considered very solid evidence, much better that all the people who told about those explosions. I had heard the idea expressed that the foundation had to be broken up to some extent so as to loosen the core columns from the bedrock. That somehow had to be done as "step one". I do not know about that suggestion but we do need to explain the reason for the pre-explosions. IF the foundation was not much disturbed at all, then I doubt the explosion was strong enough to do that loosening of the huge beams.
So we need to evaluate the degree of destruction of the foundation to get at the strength of the explosions, I guess.
Another thing is that I understand that from like the mid 1950s, there have been certain kinds of nukes that have been designed for demolition - cut-out nukes, mini nukes, third generation, fourth generation. We need to discuss those difference kinds of bombs and see if we can narrow it down to certain kinds. Dr. Hubert says must be fission type. Chuck Boldwyn suggests neutron, which I think can be both fission and fusion - not sure.
Just some random insomniac thoughts.
The reason I am favoring Chuck's hypothesis over the DEW idea is because Chuck is showing direct and well known principles of chemistry and physics and how they explain the data. Judy Wood has not done this. She is only pointing out the data and vaguely suggesting that DEW were responsible. This is not good enough. Chuck has gone through Judy's 43 "unexplained points" and is explaining them in a scientific and natural way with the laws of chemistry and physics.
I have ZERO doubt that Chuck is on the right track and Judy is just wildly speculating. I contend she is on a emotional trip with this DEW idea because I heard her once say that she started done the DEW road because certain things in the towers reminded her of some experiments she had done with the reflection of light. In my opinion, this ball game about DEW vs. thermate/mini nuke is already over, and Chuck is on the corrrect side. Time will just bear his hypothesis out as further evidence confirms it.
Agree that Chuck offers explanations that are already well established in science. I do wish Chuck's explanations did not rely so much on "thermite" as we have shown that that is difficult to establish as definitely playing a substantive role in the demolition, even if it could be proved that thermite was definitely present in the dust.
As for nukes, we seem to know much more about them but still it is a very big mystery area. We may only have information about some older nukes and how they "behave" and what residues they would leave, and not have information about the very latest nuke and mini-nuke technologies. So a great deal of knowledge about mini-nukes may be unknown, just as almost nothing is known for sure about how DEWs "act."
The idea that the 47 main core columns were first cut, by thermite or whatever, is looking less and less plausible to me. I do not believe that during that 50 minutes between the alleged plane crash and the disintegration/destruction of the South Tower was a time when on the inside of the building the cutting was taking place. I believe that there were some small scattered superficial fires that were started at the time of the alleged plane crash and those small fires were allowed to "cook" for about 50 minutes to make people thing that those fires were actually busy melting the steel beams.
While Dr. Fetzer a very long time ago suggested that maybe the reason for the pre-explosions were to loosen the core beams, Dr. Fetzer has now come to believe that the pupose of the pre-explosions, which though measurable and measured by Columbia U., was to drain the sprinkler systems of all their water, as the basement filling with water after the pre-explosions was noted by people present there. That way, the fires, which maybe started from the "fire balls" that we saw right after the alleged plane crash, could continue burning and perhaps spread about the building. The idea was to have those scattered small superficial fires play a very large role in the official story. The alleged plane crashes were supposed to happen at the exact same time as the pre-explosions in the sub-basements so that the pre-explosions would not be taken account of and noticed and would be thought just to be a result of the plane crash. But they miscalulated that Columbia Univ. as well as FAA and radar data would prove that the pre-explosions actually happened several seconds BEFORE the alleged plane crashes and fireballs.
So the big boom explosions that destroyed the towers really was not a procedure that required preliminary, absolutely crucial, steps. The building were blown to kinddom come in one fell swoop. Any "pre" things we observed were for the purpose of supporting the official story and making it seem more believable.
We do not have to prove what actually happened. We just have to rule out things that are suggested that seem highly implausible and we need to say why. What chuck does is present KNOWN substances and their actions that could provide just as strong an explanation of the data, or the "evidence" as does the DEW hypothesis. For that reason, his information is extremely valuable, but again we know nothing about DEWs except that they act in mysterious ways, and we have no proof that "thermite or nano-thermite" was present or if present played any substantive role other than perhaps being inserted "red herring" data to keep us off investigation more true ideas. Remember, the JFK assassination, according to Dr. Fetzer, was heavily salted with fake evidence to make investigation almost an impossible task. But even though we cannot prove what did happen, we can do a whole lot through open discussion by making strong arguments for what most probably did not happen. IT is just a process of ruling out things.
very excellent points and you understand the scientific method well. Although Chuck cannot yet conclusively prove that thermite was used to cut the core columns, he has suggested specific reaction substances to look for in support of his hypothesis. He has given the details maybe he will again. This is how science is, it is driven by an interaction between the evidence and hypotheses and back and forth, but science is an ongoing process where this is occuring all the time. At some point, a hypothesis becomes a tentative acceptable theory, but even then research goes on. I myself am very confident that although it will take time, more data will be added and it will add more links to the chain that Chuck has started. Research will also go on to separate the fake and real data.
What is really important is that people understand this process. In my opinion, almost noone in the 911 truth or JFK research communities understand this process. Some just get boring ego wedded to their hypothesis, examples in my view are Josiah Thompson, Bob Groden, and Judy Wood. Some are outright disinfo specialists like Gary Mack. Some are just common mundane "gatekeepers" that I see in my work plus at something as small as a homeowners meeting where certain assertive types of people take everyone else by the collar and make people intimidated to contradict them. For example, there is so much of this going on with the gatekeepers of maintaining the standard line about planes and thermate.
Because people are either not smart enough or too lazy to study the stuff Prof. Fetzer taught for 30 years, the end result is that the truth on most everything in this society is getting lost. And the oligargarchs are sitting back and enjoying the ride. Even when all hell breaks loose, guess where everyone is going to end up: the rest of us in their concentration camps and the oligargarchy under the Denver airport in the very best emergency bunkers.