Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
Listen to the Jim Fetzer's 11+ & still near-future-ongoing "Where Did The Towers Go?" interviews of 911 Researcher Chuck Boldwyn
Chuck Boldwyn interviews by Jim Fetzer:
If you are interested in the 911 research work of Chuck Boldwyn, you can find the complete chronological history of 11+ listed interviews of Chuck Boldwyn by Professor Jim Fetzer at the links below.
More interviews are in the works for April 20 & April 22 and more if they are needed, in reviewing and interpreting the complete set of data and photos from Dr. Judy Wood's new 911 book entitled:
Where Did The Tower Go: Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technonology on 9/11
Friday, April 22, 2011
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/search?q=chuck+boldwyn
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Friday, October 8, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Views: 66
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chuck Boldwyn on
-
Some very nice comments from listeners of Chuck Boldwyn's interviews by Jim FetzerChuck Boldwyn said...
What I really need, is to be interviewed by Coast To Coast AM radio show, even a debate with Dave Thomas or Judy Wood, basic theories that differ vastly from my Theory and Thesis of nano Thermate exploding globs and particles in the heated and thermodynamically expanding dust clouds, along with mini neutron nukes. That is all that is required to explain 100% of all tee weird anomalies.
Chuck Boldwyn- April 16, 2011 10:26 PM
Sally said...
Chuck--if you look at your work on the 911scholars.ning site, you'll see a count of visits per page in the lower right corner. Your stellar work deserves greater exposure, as you'll see by the relatively low numbers.
- April 3, 2011 5:05 AM
John said...Great show. Chuck's analysis is impeccable and so easy to understand. I think that the debunkers really have their work cut out for them.
- March 29, 2011 3:32 PM
Sally said...Chuck's work is superb! It appealed to me because I have a grad background in medical sciences, and a good understanding of physical principles, and I was totally absorbed following along with his diagrams. But you don't need an overly technical background to understand Chuck's research and explanations -- he has painstakingly and thoroughly designed it to be easy to follow for anyone with a reasonable basic ed. If only Americans could be bothered to spend time away from the utter bs on the box and their indulgent lives, and tune in to your consistently stellar shows, Jim. Chuck just needs to make sure his text and diagrams are proof-read, and the latter spiffed up before publication. They look as if they have been generated using amateurish graphics software, and need to be made textbook grade. Please forgive that observation -- it is meant to be constructive.
Sally
-
Permalink Reply by Thoth II on
-
since I think Chuck is now the big kid on the block, I really wish the 911 truth leaders like Judy Wood would have the cajones to debate him, they'd lose, but let's have it out. Now that Chuck has discovered the true hypothesis, it's time to take the gloves off . Why is she for example hiding?
-
Permalink Reply by Jeannon Kralj on
-
Just listened to the April 20 show of yours, Chuck, that was just posted by Dr. Fetzer.
Very good but still having a bit of a problem following along with the pictures. On EVERY slide, say the page number and the slide number. Say both of those numbers to help us get on the same page with you quickly. If both of you are speaking at same time when you are saying those two numbers, one of you alone should repeat those two numbers. I really like the slides and get frustrated when I can't look at them while you are speaking. This is not as crucial when your slide contains no pictures.
Your overall explanation of the supposed anomalies and "selectivity" characteristic of the damage done to the parked cars was excellent. I do think your mention of some surfaces being treated with fire retardants and other chemical was very very good and destroys the case for some strange "selectivity characteristic" of the Hutchison Effect.
As for Dr. Wood's use of the term "dustification", I must say that Dr. Wood never said what the dust that was the result of the dustification was made up of. She did not say it was dust made of steel so your argument there seemed a bit of a straw man to me. You should rebutt that steel spire that we see on video turning to dust. I guess you would say something like -- that sole remaining steel spire just sort of dissolved because it was sort of coated with "exploding nano thermate" chips.
As for dust particle size, I remember Dr. Steven Jones did a radio show on Dr. Fetzer's radio show Dynamic Duo where he spoke at length about the particle size. I never heard Dr. Jones claim that there were not other things in the dust besides the "iron spheres" and the other one of two "ingredients" he found. He did not claim that was all that was found. He just chose to speak about what he thought was of significance.
I like what Dr. Fetzer says about thermate being like toothpaste -- you can put any explosives with toothpaste and you have an explosive. I am still unclear why if "mini neutron nukes" did the major part of the work, or all of the work, that explosive coated nano thermate is needed, except maybe as the "cause" of some of the after-effects, but not as playing any role in the main destructive action of the structure of the towers.
-
-
The Thermate was used inside on the core columns and at the truss connection points and on critical perimeter columns primarily where the floor trusses are connected. This eating up of that steel was done quietly from inside, but much, much iron spheres were being produces and much, much Al2O3 was being produced along the entire length of the Tower(s) to prep or massively weaken the columns and connections. Then the mimi nukes completed the job while the Thermate was still cutting and reacting with the steel.
Thermate came first to vastly weaken the Tower(s), then came the mini mukes or the massive explosions from some other explosive source, many, many tons of it, if regular explosives wer used, which may be possible, especially when Thermate did most of the major steel cutting and weakening.
I am preparing albums with just the graphics required for that show and where they are in the proper order.
They are not completed yet, but I hope soon.
I am also going to prepare slide show videos for YouTube to try to gain a wider audience and to rebutt Judy's not very well thought out hypothesis, when there is a far easier and more logical explanation for all of the anomolies.
Thanks for the overall supportive response.
-
-
Also Dr. Judy did indeed claim that the steel was turned into dust, steel dust, not iron dust and not iron spheres.
One need only examine the dust samples for steel particles to prove or disprove a major, major thesis of hers.
The original paper of Neils Harrit and Steve Jones, etc. did not list dustified steel and dustified aluminum. Therefore, unless she can prove the presence of steel and aluminum dust, her whole thesis is "busted" and totally "debunked"
I have disproven her dustification of steel theory, now it is up to her to prove its presence in the dust sample that are still available with NIST and with Neils Haritt and with other agencies and with pedestrians who directly collected the dust samples on 911.
No straw man here, and she has in no way even remotely "proven" her case and she never will be able to prover her case, but it may take me months or years to relay these facts to the public, unless I get some massive media exposure help, much, much more than I am now getting.
-
-
"Also Dr. Judy did indeed claim that the steel was turned into dust, steel dust, not iron dust and not iron spheres."
I know that Dr. Wood has said many times that steel was "dustified" or steel was turned into dust, but I have never seen any specific citation where she claims that steel was turned into "steel dust" as you are claiming she said. This is a valid distinction that I am making. Since this is an important part of your debunking, I think you should show us the specific writing or radio show where she says the steel was turned in to steel dust. To my knowledge, Dr. Wood never has made any statements at all about the make-up of the dust.
Dr. Wood has pretty much been in hibernation or not on mainstream alternative radio for maybe at least two years or more so this book coming out now is sort of a resurrection for her. But best I can tell she is not saying anything new compared to what she was saying on her site two or three years ago.
It is important to relay accurately, with citations, what Dr. Wood is claiming. Then and only then can your debunking information have its full impact. I think Dr. Fetzer would back me up on that. From what I have learned over the years in the debating about 9-11, or any real debate on any subject, I know that it is an important part of quality argumentation to accurately convey what you are arguing against, what you are representing as what your opponent is asserting. The opponent, Dr. Wood in this case, seems to have crafted her assertions to be vague and weak and not something clear and definitive and that is why Dr. Reynolds and/or Dr. Wood claim her book is totally undebunkable or whatever the exact words were to that effect.
There is a FREE downloadable pdf book by Andrew Johnson at LuLu.com that probably contains all of what Dr. Wood covers in her book.
9/11 Finding the Truth
A Compilation of Articles by Andrew JohnsonFocused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood
___________
One comment I would make is that Andrew Johnson seems also to adhere to kind of a "New Age" way of thinking. Just as when Dr. Wood advises in her book to "listen to the evidence", Andrew Johnson says "I hope there is a realisation of how we are all connected – in a “pool” of human consciousness."
About
© 2025 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
