Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Beyond High School Physics

{The following is an off-list email. It did lead to a cordial brief exchange with Physics Teacher Mr. Chandler. Mr. Chandler has done great works for 9/11 truth. My milli-nukes contention stands on his shoulders. Alas, Mr. Chandler was not in an academic position to comment on milli-nukes, with it being well outside his area of interest and expertise. He wished me well in making my case, though.}

Dear Mr. Chandler & Mr. Cole,

I highly respect the work you two have provided to the 9/11 Truth Movement. I agree with your conclusions. I understand and agree with your goals:

We need a real forensic investigation, the real perpetrators of 9/11 need to be held accountable, and the world needs Truth.

Until I am convinced otherwise, my present beliefs about 9/11 have me championing two fringe theories that have been supposedly dismissed and debunked by the 9/11 Truth Movement. (For this reason, I am not permitted to post on 9/11 Blogger.) I am not married to either one, and will not be hurt if they are proven wrong. After all, your work represents my "fall back position" regarding the physics of the official govt conspiracy theory (OGCT) not adding up and thereby proving an insider conspiracy. However, to date, neither have been proven wrong in my books. And I'm writing, I suppose, to be set right about at least one of those fringe theories: that 9/11 was a nuclear event.

I've noticed that A&E for 9/11 Truth (of which I am a member) dances around the potential of milli-nukes in explaining the WTC destruction observed. Specifically, they make the case that a gravitational collapse cannot explain the speed, the pulverization of content, the ejection of content, the thoroughness of the destruction, or the foundry-hot fires burning under the rubble for months. It hints that these are huge energy sinks. Because nano-thermite was found in various dust samples, this is practically touted as the likely cause but isn't called out explicitly as the cause.

Not that thermitic compounds (together with a host of back-up and redundant demolition techniques) weren't employed in some fashion, it is the physics of nano-thermite that also rules it out as explaining all of the observable features. In order to melt steel (e.g., cutter charge), thermitic compounds have a fast burn rate. Doing the math on the quantities of such thermitic compounds that would be necessary to sustain under-rubble, foundry-hot fires for weeks/months results in massive quantities that would have been unlikely to have been present. Plus, thermitic compounds would melt/cut steel, but would not necessarily pulverize content/concrete and eject debris.

To the above, we have to add the damage to vehicles outside the radius of falling debris and testimonies from EMTs regarding car doors getting blown off, etc.

I use the prefix milli very loosely, not to convey the exact order of magnitude but to get people thinking much smaller than mega or kilo that they normally associate with nukes. Nukes of very low yield are hard to design and deploy. They inefficiently consume their nuclear material. Used in tandem with other milli-nukes, they have the potential of causing others to fail, so back-up and redundancy are requisite. Unspent but fizzling nuclear material may have been what burned under the rubble for months. The 9/11 milli-nukes were designed for a limited yield to be contained within the chex structure and with its energy focused in useful directions (like down in a narrow cone on that tough bugger of a central core). Keep in mind the construction efforts on vacant floors that left dust residue in the offices of adjacent floors; keep in mind the report from a nosy neighbor who spied into the space where construction activities occurred and saw no offices or other tangible expected sights; maybe they were constructing a containing/energy-directing type funnel.

Emergency vehicles on neighboring streets may have been affected by a blast & heat wave of milli-nukes lower down. An electrical magnetic pulse (EMP) may have slipped out through the window slits of milli-nukes higher up, which caused the damage to vehicles outside the radius of falling debris but within line-of-sight of an EMP.

If Dr. Judy Woods website is good for nothing else (and few DEW conclusions), it has plenty of pictures of damage of vehicles to prove EMP.

- http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted

- http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

"A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles."

In particular on the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.

By all means, give Dr. Judy Wood's website a through exploring to observe the many pictures she amasses. Ignore her conclusions and the titles of pages of where the pictures are found; look for the nuggets of truth that are the pictorial evidence.

Also view this AP Coast Guard Aerial of 9/11 showing the thoroughness of the destruction.

Certainly the toxic mix of substances and chemicals in the air contributed to the ailments of 9/11 first responders. But you can bet that the weasel-words of the doctors also included poor lifestyle choices as a contributing factor to their illnesses today. Much of their sickness also aligns with radiation poisoning.

In my discussions in various forums, one point mentioned against 9/11 being a nuclear event was the supposed lack of evidence of radiation. Those in the 9/11 Movement tend to rely on the reports from physicist Dr. Steven Jones. Dr. Jones dismisses nuclear mechanisms based on govt reports regarding radiation measurements. The argument for nuclear mechanisms is not limited to govt reports which have a track record of being less than genuine, less than scientific, less than complete (that Dr. Jones laments about himself).

In fact, the evidence as revealed with the vehicle damage on Dr. Judy Woods (limited hangout DEW) website and in lots of newly released FOIA videos and pictures (of which I'm sure you've seen more than I) clearly shows destruction requiring massive amounts of energy.

Occam Razor. 9/11 milli-nukes explains what we observed, including the disinfo ploys and how Dr. Woods website tries to sweep all evidence of nuclear bombs under the carpet of DEW for easy debunking and to get those uncomfortable truths off of the table.

Milli-nukes also explains the cheerleaders for the OGCT after-the-fact. If the US nuked itself (directly or by contract with Israel), national security is the ruse but the reality is job security. The fallout of this nuclear revelation would be America sending everyone in Washington packing (and a good many to jail or death row), tearing down many agencies and institutions, and maybe even splitting apart the union or nation as we know it.

Nano-thermite may be a sacred cow of disinformation that will need to be slaughtered soon, much to the initial chagrin of the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, most are dedicated to the truth. Most have already been accumulating and dancing around the evidence of milli-nukes like a wave in the ocean building up and ready to crest. We will be happy to surf the truth where ever it goes, even if -- and maybe because -- it has the power to wipe out the institutions and govt that are the source for our suffering (and that of the world's).

If I am a duped useful idiot on the milli-nuke front, I'm open for enlightenment and change. Please help me.

1 comment:

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Dr. Ed Ward made a posting here that I deleted. It amounted to several links to other postings by Dr. Ward.

Since I wrote the above "Beyond High School Physics" article, I read Dr. Judy Wood's textbook "Where did the Towers go?", thinking that it would help bolster my case for milli-nukes. I was going to mine it nuggets of truth amidst the disinformation that I suspected was there.

The short of the matter is, her textbook convinced me that directed energy weapons (DEW) powered by a milli-nuclear reactor or even cold-fusion device were the most likely primary causes of the WTC towers destruction. Such energy sources did not have to be co-located on the same floor as the DEW; the concept of extension cords even when talking massive energy distribution lines is not foreign. To a certain degree, the reconfiguration of power lines in the towers in the weekends leading up to 9/11 could have been for the purposes of inserting controllable energy diverters, such that the buildings' own major wiring could have their energy re-directed to something else that was plugged in on demand.

At any rate, the energy sources being of a nuclear (or cold-fusion) nature could explain the elevated and anomalous radiation measurements, but were explained away as not matching the radiation signature of known or assumed nuclear weapons.

Wrap or paint the container for the energy source in super-dooper nano-thermite to destroy the evidence, and you can explain remmants of this incindiary at various hot-spots within the pile, hot-spots that were burning for months.

Dr. Ward may have made his nuclear postings here, thinking that this article was still my present bat-shit crazy beliefs. It is not, because I now champion DEW instead of milli-nuclear devices.

Thus, I deleted Dr. Ward's posting because he hasn't evolved and I didn't want to continue to lead my readers astray into milli-nukes.

My apologies, Dr. Ward. If you want to post something original, a response to me in person, instead of a short list of links (one dealing with election fraud), I probably won't moderate it.