Chuck Boldwyn's Page

Super, let's have it out. This will be a heck of debate on real deal feb. 6.  By the way, people who know the history of science relish this, this is how science always progresses, from wave vs. particle theory of light, to Einstein vs. Bohr, and on and on it goes.

I think Morgan has been using straw men and hyperbole, not science, and the point by point should eventually show this up.  

Morgan,

thanks for response, but I really think you are straw manning the argument here to make it seem less believable.  They knew the amount of concrete, fracture energy, number of nukes, energy per nuke, etc., and they could have fine tuned it quite well.  It is all engineering here, not science.  

Nukes, I guess, were tailored in advance to neatly fit some of the WTC data, David-Copperfield style.  Nuclear explosions had with no detectable heat and therefore left millions of sheets of unburned paper, no blinding light visible, incredibly powerful kinetic energy/blast waves which thoughtfully stopped precisely at the boundaries of the WTC after turning steel and concrete to micron-sized powder, leaving no evidence but dust, leaving enough steel at ground level to convince the gullible that nothing unusual happened, etc.  No known/conventional-wisdom nuclear bombs operate this way, but that doesn't discourage nuke champions any more than evidence stops welding material worshipers from hugging thermite/thermate.  As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of nuclear fission/fusion heat, blinding light, knock-down nuclear blast waves or any other signature effect of nuclear explosions.  Maybe a little of the "mushroom cloud" look but not even that was a ringer.

As e.l.o. sang,

"Ho, ho, ho

It's magic you know

Never believe, it's not so

It's magic, you know

Never believe, it's not so

Shallel,

I'll concede on the momentum, I think maybe you are correct there are a brand of DEW that do not have momentum, the non-directional standing wave type.

I believe my calc. about the minimum power of 3000 MW is correct, and that is about Hoover Dam amount.  I am just putting that out there because I am skeptical a DEW could have that much power.

As for the first law of TD, I do believe I am correct a nuke could be designed so the energy was eaten up in fracturing the concrete and not necessarily raising the temperature; since this has been raised as an objection to nuke.  

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf   ( a background paper about energy transfer by Dr. Frank Greening

"Mini-nukes as causal agent are not much better for lack of signature characteristics of nuclear explosions at the WTC as well as failure to demonstrate that nukes can produced the dozens of anomalous effects Dr. Wood documents at the WTC. "

Nukes do demonstrate conservation of momentum better than DEW in each twin tower.  Watch how the debris is hurled upward and outward symmetrically around the towers, apparently from about 10 points equally spaced along the towers length.  I think one nuke per second was detonated in sequence down the towers.  The initial momentum was zero, and the final momentum of the ejecta was zero because each momentum vector had an equal but opposite one and +1 - 1 = 0 momentum after explosion.  This is characteristic of exposives detonated from a point source.  If a DEW with high power had hit the towers, the momentum of the DEW would not be zero but would be a net in one direction and the ejecta would have been blown over in that direction

"

 Nuclear explosions produce temperatures in the millions of degrees, blinding light (literally), extremely powerful blast wave, etc., none of which were experienced or observed at the WTC.  Conventlonal explosives and nukes destroy by sudden release of energy and just two facts by themselves falsify such explosives: impossibly low seismic readings and an undamaged WTC bathtub (1 million+ tons did not crash into the bathtub) which kept the Hudson river from flooding downtown Manhattan.  "  

According to Frank Greening, reference above, the total fracture energy to pulverize the concrete into 60 micron dust average was 6,700 Joules/kg with 50,000,000 kg of concrete per tower (plus there was ten times this mass of steel).  That is a total fracture energy of 3.35 X 10 (10 power) Joules in 10 seconds for a required power to pulverize concrete of 3,350 megawatts.  That is about the power output of the Hoover Dam, I've been to the Hoover Dam power station, that is pretty awesome.  Could a DEW have gotten that much power from somewhere?  (and this doesn't count the 10 tens mass of steel).  

As for the heat, the energy of the nukes was eaten up by fracturing the concrete and vaporizing/hurling out the steel fragments.  By first law of thermodynamics, the heat put in by the nukes could have gone into two places: work (it did by fracturing the steel and concrete), and increase in internal energy (by raising the temperature).  But the designers made sure (1) the energy of each nuke got totally eaten by the work energy and none was left to increase the temp. (2) the shock wave did all the fracturing of the tower material and none was left to fracture the bathtub.

Of course, the towers were prepped like in Chuck Boldwyn's theory with thermite for 50 minutes so the nukes only had to destroy swiss cheesed out steel.  The little holes around the complex were also blown out by nukes.

Dr. Judy Wood has a DEW theory, according to Chuck.  By contrast, he has "original research" which is "most convincing" to "many other people."  Wow, quite an enviable situation for Chuck, although he could name his admirers to help us verify the last part of his claims.  Or maybe we should just cast all such assertions aside following Shakespeare's admonition: “...it will come to pass that every braggart will be found an ass."

As to content: of course thermite/thermate, a welding material and incendiary, as agent of destruction at the WTC is totally bogus http://nomoregames.net/2012/01/14/collapse-of-the-thermite-thesis/.   Mini-nukes as causal agent are not much better for lack of signature characteristics of nuclear explosions at the WTC as well as failure to demonstrate that nukes can produced the dozens of anomalous effects Dr. Wood documents at the WTC.  Nuclear explosions produce temperatures in the millions of degrees, blinding light (literally), extremely powerful blast wave, etc., none of which were experienced or observed at the WTC.  Conventlonal explosives and nukes destroy by sudden release of energy and just two facts by themselves falsify such explosives: impossibly low seismic readings and an undamaged WTC bathtub (1 million+ tons did not crash into the bathtub) which kept the Hudson river from flooding downtown Manhattan. 

"The dominant effects of a nuclear weapon (the blast and thermal radiation) are the same physical damage mechanisms as conventional explosives, but the energy produced by a nuclear explosive is millions of times more per gram and the temperatures reached are in the tens of megakelvins. Nuclear weapons are quite different from regular weapons because of the huge amount of explosive energy they can put out and the different kinds of effects they make, like high temperatures and nuclear radiation." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion

Also see pp. 121-2 in http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/ by Dr. Wood.

Thank you for the welcome, Chuck. 

Debunking Judy Wood's work?  How does that work?  It doesn't and cannot because Dr. Wood is not a theorist, she is an evidence-gatherer.  What evidence presented in "Where Did the Towers Go?" is false?  Please be specific.  Proof preferred for all propositions alleged to debunk Dr. Wood. 

For those interested, please visit my blog, nomoregames.net  While I'm at it, also go to   www.judywood.com and wheredidthetowersgo.com for the REAL DEAL and what happened at the WTC on September 11, 2001. 

More to come from yours truly.

--Best regards, Morgan

Thanks for the warm welcome Chuck. I have been following your interviews on The Real Deal with Jim Fetzer and recently completed Judy Wood's book.  I look forward to delving more deeply into your respective theories of how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed.

I am a retired Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgeon with an interest in the JFK Assassination, 911 and the moral implications of public policy.  Currently, I edit 2 blogs of possible interest to this group including:

http://moralphilosophyofcurrentevents.blogspot.com/

and

http://jfkassassinationconspiracyupdate.blogspot.com/

I have written several pieces that address aspects of the medical history of Osama bin Laden in light of the allegedly new bin Laden videos recently released in the wake of Seal Team 6's purported execution of OBL. Here is a link to one FYI:

http://moralphilosophyofcurrentevents.blogspot.com/2011/05/problems-for-recent-bin-laden-death.html

John Hubert

I woke up to the whole Zionist and Jewish organized crime issue about two years ago.  It took me a couple of months to wrap my brain around it, and then I started that topic at jfkmurdersolved.com

You can see how various mystery members responded to the information with a sense of hysteria.  I call them mystery members because they were usually forum members I didn't know about or who joined relatively recently and started attacking the information without actually attacking the information.  For example, they would say that I'm just against Jews or "anti-Semitic," and I would ask them why they say that.  They would never tell me.  They would only point to the mere fact that I was critical of Israel and putting information out there about 9/11 and Israeli fingerprints all over it. 

I even tried pointing out to them that I have put up with all sorts of stereotypes about Italians without bellyaching about it and that if I was talking about Italian organized crime, nobody would have a problem with it.  Of course, when I talk about Jewish and Zionist criminals, it's seems like a different ball game.  They would never respond to that either. 

They would just continue to accuse me of being an "anti-Semite."  LOL   I also agree with you that the word "Semite" and the word "anti-Semite" is not used properly.  The mainstream media have warped the definition of those words.   Then again, the mainstream media, it seems to me, also invented the phrase "Judeo-Christian."  It almost makes it sound like the Jewish religion is some sort of grandfather to the Christian faith which it doesn't seem to be, in my opinion. 

Am I over stepping by saying that?  Feel free to talk me down a little.  Sometimes I need a little education or a good talking to.  LOL