Friday, February 11, 2011

Left Right

{The following is a snippet from a discussion on AlterNet with John regarding milli-nukes. This is John Wright (aka LeftWright) of 9/11 Blogger. That on-list discussion led to some off-list email exchanges. Those very cordial exchanges ended with the ball in John's court to see if some knowledgeable scientific co-workers would agree with my assessment. At the clip of about once I month, I pinged John to remind him respectfully that the ball was still in his court regarding getting the views of his scientific co-workers and convincing me/him that milli-nukes weren't used on 9/11. It should be pointed out that they won't let me into 9/11 Blogger because I champion both milli-nukes and elements of the "no-(commercial)-planes" theories.}

Let me start with your conclusion:

"I have shown that nothing you cite is exclusively explained by the use of nukes. Therefore, absent some other positive evidence, it is illogical and unreasonable to postulate that they were used on 9/11/01."

Not true. Whereas there is overlap between (a) nukes and (b) thermite/nanothermite & explosives/incendiaries and these mechanisms may have been used together for fail-safe redundancy (because they really really really wanted the WTC complex destroyed), the three main areas where your mechanisms cannot logically and reasonably explain what was observed are:

- the under-rubble fire duration

- the energy required for the totality of the destruction


No comments: