Expand All /
Señor El Once : the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge
I studied the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge.
The core piece of information — the flight data recorder from the Pentagon plane — has authentication issues and chain-of-custody issues right and left. The kicker for me was the original FDR information was missing the final four seconds. Along comes a mysterious “John Farmer” who found a way to re-build/extract the flight path of those final four seconds. Lo and behold, the path went smoothly into the Pentagon, despite being in disagreement with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low.
Why were those final four seconds missing from the FDR?
Why weren't they originally decoded, because they represent the money-shot time period?
Seems to me if the FDR really did have such a smooth flight-path into the Pentagon, it would have been made public sooner.
Back to the disagreement of the final four seconds with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low. Those readings are explained away in your paper as being in error, owing to the aircraft speed, without analysis of why they would be in error and the direction that error would take. In other words, does a pressure-based altimeter give off measurements that are higher or lower than actual altitude when speed is increased?
The pressure based altimeter at high speed and high altitude is known to introduce errors. My meager research on the subject does not show indications of errors at low altitude at high speed or how the error would be manifested.
Thus, Mr. Chandler, in case you didn't recognize it, the above is a lynch-pin in your whole paper's premise, and it is one that you haven't proven.
Expand All /
As for the "NOC flight path being physically implausible", this is only true if you are trying to get a NOC flight path to also swerve and account for light-pole damage and holes in the Pentagon. Separating the flight path from the inflicted damage, then a NOC flight path is not out of the question. Who ever or what ever piloted the downward spiral could also land whatever the aircraft really was on a supposedly too short Reagan Airport Runway. They also could have flown it to other destinations with hardly anyone paying a lot of attention, because planes taking off and landing are pretty normal for the Reagan airport.
None of the 9/11 planes each with hundreds of thousands of serial numbered parts that could uniquely identify the exact aircraft have had such evidence presented to the public. Thus, doubt persists. First responders at the Pentagon reported seeing bodies. The distinction, however, is rarely made: passenger in the aircraft or victim at work in the Pentagon? If there was no aircraft that hit the building but we were led to believe there was, then the merging of the victims from planes would merge with victims from the building.
The Pentagon is full of people who take orders and who essentially plan for war (or defense) as their livelihood. Orders not to talk about 9/11 have been given. (Even NY first responders were given such gag orders.) I suspect we'll be able to find very little truth coming from the Pentagon, because doubt and confusion serves them better.
On another subject from the beginning of your paper, you write:
One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed. ... Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by "dustification" of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of "directed free energy". 1 It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions.
First of all, this comment was irrelevant to your paper. It has more the appearance of you and Mr. Legge setting up your own broad-brush straw man.
Secondly, "dustification" of the steel is a misrepresentation of Dr. Wood's book. If you read it rather than skimmed it, you would know this. I am now in the camp of directed energy weapons, due to their ease in installation and targeting. They turned water molecules that were trapped within content into steam, whose expanding volumic pressure blew apart the content containers, leaving dust and steam. Pulverization of concrete and drywall is a massive energy sink. Where did the energy come from? This is a separate question from what caused the destruction. Could it have been "dircted free energy" from the weatherman-conspiracy to completely unreport Hurrican Erin that they'd been tracking and reporting all week, just not when it was close to NY on 9/11/2001? Or could it have been bad ass power distribution cables they ran down the elevator shafts and plugged into some nuclear or cold-fusion reactors? The latter at least would explain the anomalous radiation readings. Pack/paint the power generator and the separated DEW into their own "blanket" of super-duper nano-thermite, so that much of the mechanism remnants can be destroyed and obscured.
Third, Dr. Wood raises important questions about energy requirements. She compiles lots of evidence that most in the truth movement do not address, thereby making their theories the weaker ones. She questions some of the evidence that we were led to believe. Glowing does not always equate to hot.
An objective analysis of the evidence (and connections) in Dr. Wood's textbook is required. Your hand-wavy dismissal doesn't cut it. Make it your next peer-reviewed effort.
Señor El Once : Making the Movement look ridiculous?
Allow me to provide some perspective. About the time their first term was over, the Bush Administration had 47 major scandals that individually would have brought down any other administration. True to Karl Rove's remarks to a reporter (paraphrased): "We are an empire now and create our own realities. While you are judiciously analyzing one, we will have created two or three other realities." The Bush Administration kept piling it on. With the help of a complicit corporate media constantly framing President Bush as a war president and projecting American flags waving proudly behind the logos of the day -- "America at War", "The Global War on Terror", "The War against Terror" --, with sound-bite reporting, and with the telly-viewing public's short attention span, details on the scandal four or five scandals ago leaked at the right time overshadowed the scandal-of-the-day and kept dots from being connected.
9/11 was this "pile it on" modus operandus in miniture. One hijacked and crashed aircraft would have been analyzed to death like one space shuttle disaster. Four, however, pile it on and play against each other, whereby details from one get mixed in the others so that the public's cognitive dissonance will happily avoid a headache and settle on theories advertized as Occam Razor, coincidentally the very conspiracy theories promoted by the corporate media and govt spokemen before the dust of the towers had even settled.
The fact is that each of the four need to be viewed separately where techniques for one (inserted faked radar blips) may or may not have been used for another (cruise missile). In the case of the destruction of the WTC complex, redundant and supplementary destructive mechanisms from one building do not have to equate to that of another.
I take issue with a small passage in the joint statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole
There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?
The demolition of the towers clearly had origins within them. Framing this "crazy" notion as space lasers is deceitful on two counts. One is that it attempts to take off of the table how lasers (or directed energy weapons) might have legitimately been used within the towers to achieve the pulverization on content. The other is that it attempts to take space lasers off the table where they might legitimately apply, like being responsible for the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of WTC-4 main edifice at a neat line with its North Wing. What was the telly weatherman-conspiracy on the morning of 9/11? Before planes were hijacked, the conspiracy was not to report Hurricane Erin at it closest point to NYC although they'd been tracking and reporting it all week.
A second part of your strawman passage was: "Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms." I am a no-planer of the "September Clues" school, such a duped useful idiot am I. However, I do not endorse holograms. In fact, those who promote holograms are usually not in the no-planer camp, such as yourself. They are detractors who try to mis-frame and ridicule the supportable theory of no-planes by adding elements as you have done with this attempt at an off-hand dismissal.
What is the A to Z extent of the proof that commercial planes hit the towers? Pixels on the telly. It is not a hangar of meticulously excavated airplane parts with serial numbers that matched the documented maintenance records of the commercial planes. We have seen pixels on the telly do remarkable things with regards to special effects over the years, but that doesn't make it real.
In my travels around the 9/11 block being duped by one notion or another, evidence and convincing arguments are what got me to believe one thing and what can get me to believe another. All of the things you ridicule? Lasers -- space-based or spire-based within the towers -- and no-commercial-planes via telly pixels? These have not been debunked. Ridiculed? For sure. Definitively proven wrong with evidence, etc.? Nope.
In fact, as a physics teacher, Mr. Chandler, you owe it to yourself to explore "September Clues" in your next peer-reviewed effort after your peer-reviewed piece on Dr. Wood's textbook, because the lack of crash physics at the towers is one of the glaring pieces of evidence that expose how we were manipulated with television.
- Where was the deformation of the aluminum aircraft upon impact with the steel tower designed to withstand such force?
- Measuring the speed of the plane's tail, how could it enter the steel towers at the same speed it flew through thin air?
- How come the wings didn't sheer off in the sudden deceleration we expected but didn't see?
- The Pentagon plane supposed had its wings folded back upon impact with its face, which is (supposedly) why the hole there is smaller than a real plane. So why didn't the wings on the 2nd WTC plane fold up where the steel tower walls were stronger than the Pentagon's concrete walls?
- Why did the wings out to their very tippy tips leave a Road-Runner outline on the face of the tower?
- Aluminum wings slicing steel like butter?
- Back to measuring the speed of the plane's tail, how was this faster at sea level than the rated maximum of the aircraft at altitude?
- Why do the various videos (44 of them, I believe) have discrepancies in flight path?
- Regarding the miracle triple zoom shot from the helicopter to capture the final seconds of impact, why don't we see the plane where its calculate speed says it should be when playing the footage backwards and look at the zoom out's?
You think that exploring the totality of the evidence into the areas of advanced technology and computer generated imagery tars the movement. However, it is still open for debate what the absurdly false theories are. The fuel a media circus? Gee, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been trying to get that for a decade and would be a damn good thing, because such a media circus would have brought awareness to the public, something the govt and complicit corporate media actively suppressed.
Making the Movement look ridiculous? What does this is not taking the discussion where it needs to go. What better way to steer (and tar) the movement.
Señor El Once : started but didn't finish Dr. Wood's textbook
A 500 page book, albeit with 500 large pictures, and all you can come up with in your good, bad, and ugly book report to supposedly debunk it in its entirety is that you started but didn't finish it, because you had better things to do with your time?! How well does this excuse fly with you when lobbed by one of your high school students? Thought so.
Would one of those "better things" be the "totally disgusting" paper that you co-authored with Frank Legge and that contained glaring weaknesses pointed out above in this thread, but also as it turns out years before? How was it that Mr. Legge pulled the wool over your eyes, Mr. Chandler, that you would participate in such a farce? I suppose money does talk, and it is embarrassing what our nation pays you teachers, so I don't necessarily blame you for compromising your scientific integrity and taking some cheese while you could.
Regarding your perimeter wall unit falling ahead of the rest of the debris and then emitting a puff of smoke before accelerating dramatically in a change of direction. Wonderful observation, Mr. Chandler. Yes, it is another unambiguous smoking gun proof of explosives.
And now you want me to explain that with space beams.
For starters, I have never asserted a mutual exclusive causality to any of the towers destructions. They had back-up plans to their back-up plans to assure the thoroughness of the destruction. What happened within the confines of the steel outer shell was different than what happened to the outer shell itself. My wild-ass speculation is that their planning required the outer shell to remain in tact for milli-seconds longer than the inner destructive aspects both to contain the inner destruction and to shield the observation of its destructive mechanisms from outside observers. Once the insides were dustified, something like nano-thermite could blow the bolts connecting the outer mesh together.
Of course, your space beams comment reflects how little of Dr. Judy Wood's book that you read. Maybe you and I can agree one day that elements of her book are disinformation. Your task, though, was to find them and prove them as such. You haven't. More importantly, your task was to recognize the nuggets of truth in her evidence, preserve them, and assure that whatever theories you promote also address them. This you haven't done either. (What sort of grade would you give your students for such piddly efforts?)
Because you are so flippant in your space beams comment and are so eager to see how space beams could potentially account for the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, I will indulge you in your little game and set aside for the sake of discussion my belief and its alignment with yours regarding the deployment of explosives. However, I will change your stilted framing from space beams to directed energy weapons (DEW). Why? Because DEW could be planted within the towers. The power-down periods in various weekends leading up to 9/11 could very well have served to install energy diverters that would, when required, re-route building power to DEW devices.
What happens when an inflated but unknotted balloon is let go? The force of the escaping air pushes the remnants of the balloon dramatically in a change of direction, no? What happens when you microwave excessively some liquid in a sealed tupperware container? Due to the fact that the lid's seal is the weak part of the container, the internal pressure generated by the transition of the liquid into a gas will cause the lid to pop off dramatically in a change of direction.
My premise is that most/much of the "smoke" we see in the pulverization of the towers isn't smoke. It is instead the dustification of content and steam created by the energy directed at content (e.g., concrete, drywall, etc.) The DEW mechanism excited residual water molecules in the content whose sudden and rapid expansion into steam caused the content itself to blow apart, not unlike what happens when food (e.g., refried beans, stew) is excessively microwaved in a kitchen.
Directed energy is the key phrase.
Keeping with your challenge that DEW has to explain the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, we simply have to speculate that maybe that piece of debris had something (other than explosives, right?) attached to it or in its composition such that when it fell into the electromagnetic or other types of energy fields associated with DEW -- whether those fields were direct or accidentally reflected --, the rapid change of state of its composition caused it to launch itself like a released balloon into a change of direction.
Do I truly believe this for the example in your video? No. Do I disagree with your premise that nano-thermite may have been an accelerant on that piece of debris to turn it into a rocket projectile? No.
9/11 was an overly thorough and redundant operation. I have never discounted that nano-thermite may have been involved as one of the mechanisms of destruction. The issue has always been: nano-thermite cannot explain all of the features of the destruction and its aftermath.
Speaking of math, do the math. How long could nano-thermite burn under the rubble? Trick question. A more accurate question is, what quantities of nano-thermite would be required to achieve the recorded duration of the under rubble fires? Make it simple and assume, say, 4 weeks.
More math. Calculate how much nano-thermite would be required to bring down the towers. Then calculate the energy requirements of pulverization of content. Then extrapolate and determine how much nano-thermite would be required to achieve this and meet that energy requirement of pulverization. Then Occam Razor figure out how many man-trips and effort it would take to wire it all up.
Your answers to this challenge will prove to you that nano-thermite does not explain all of the towers destruction. Another destructive mechanism and its energy source must be sought.
Wild-ass speculation on my part. They had milli-nuclear reactors or cold-fusion reactors plugged into the building's power lines that were diverted to power the DEW devices at two or three levels (including a lower level to clean up after themselves). Both towers had spires or residual structure left standing after floors and walls seemingly collapsed around them, because they supported the DEW devices for a time and the destructive energy was directed away from its support. The measured radiation levels can be attributed to the power sources, as can the hot-spots (e.g., fizzling nuclear material). Whatever they used to power DEW was booby-trapped, say, in a blanket of nano-thermite to burn up the encasement of the power source, which conveniently explains the traces of nano-thermite from places where hot-spots burned. The fields created by both DEW and the energy source can explain much of the anomaloous damage to vehicles.
Yes, elements of my wild-ass speculation are probably wrong, and I want them corrected. However, they are closer to the truth than your limited thinking and purposeful braking of the 9/11 Truth Movement from exploring the energy requirements (best documented by Dr. Wood). Your dismissive comments and premature parking at nano-thermite are just that, and they lack substance.
Go back and try again, Mr. Chandler. And this time, read the book first, because your book review from the lofty position of not having read it... well? You and everyone else gets the picture.
Maxwell C. Bridges : Over Half a Year since receiving Dr. Wood's Textbook
It has been over half a year since you received the copy of Dr. Wood's "Where Did the Towers Go?" compliments of me.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly from you?
Dr. Wood presents a lot of evidence that any contender for a valid conspiracy theory would need to address.
Word of caution is that each building needs to be discussed separately. For example, DEW probably wasn't deployed on WTC-7. Space-based DEW would not have been applicable for the observed destruction of the towers that clearly were weakened from within and not top-down. I like to call that "spire-based DEW" to indicate what supported the initial devices until a clean-up operation later took out the spire. However, when looking at the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice (and not its North Wing), space-based DEW may not be so far fetched.
With regards to free-energy and hurricane Erin, we shouldn't discount the science, although I personally am not on board with that as the energy source. It would be easier to use the buildings wiring or to run bad-ass power cables down the elevator shafts to some milli-nuclear or cold-fusion energy generator. Such generators are how my beliefs have changed since first contacting you when I was championing milli-nukes. Dr. Wood's evidence helps convince me it wasn't milli-nukes, but the measured radiation, first responder ailments, duration of under-rubble fires, melted steel, and anomalous damage to vehicles (indicating escaping field effects) hint strongly that a milli-nuclear or cold-fusion generator were somehow involved. Pack these and the DEW devices in nano-thermite to help burn away the evidence and lead us into false beliefs that nano-thermite was involved almost exclusively.
Wheat from the chaff. Dr. Wood might have some misinformation or non-applicable information. But she also has the chapters pretty well compartmentalized. Evidence presented needs to be addressed.
Something I recently discovered were the damaged cars under the bridge. The police car with the burned front end and interior but intact trunk area? Turns out the trunk has four numbers on it. I've seen other images of that car and its trunk (open and numbers visible) from other locations, meaning the car was later towed to the bridge as suggested by others. Still, the damage is anomalous, can't be accounted for by "nano-thermite in falling dust", and is even more believable as evidence of EMP/Field side-effects from its closer location rather than the bridge location.
At any rate, above are at least two areas where I disagree with items presented by Dr. Wood, but not to the point of throwing out her colorful book. Shows I'm thinking for myself.
Lest there be any doubt, I am "Señor El Once" on Truth & Shadows and publicly dressed you down for the few dismissive one-liner statements you provided in your book reviews, as well as for the glaring issues in your co-authored piece on NOC with Frank Legge.
- Quest for consensus: Toronto 9/11 hearings navigate Pentagon minefield
- David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker support CIT’s ‘staged evidence’ scenario
Although you didn't agree to the conditions that I applied, they weren't very oppressive. For the good of the truth movement, you ought to reconsider what they were. Namely.
(a) You will give it a fair and objective reading. Mine it for nuggets of truth.
(b) If Mr. Cole doesn't have the textbook (other than "for shame, for shame"), you will either loan/give him your copy or help him purchase one for himself.
(c) From both of you, I want to know "the good, the bad, and the ugly".
Hope that your holidays were refreshing. Enjoy the new semester.
Maxwell C. Bridges
Maxwell C. Bridges : what was truly baseless and a distraction from real progress in understanding the 9/11 events?
Your presumption is only half right. Certainly I expected that if the book had validity and if you had an open-mind, it would persuade you to change "your firmly held views."
But more importantly for me and my predicament as a duped useful idiot, if the book had no validity, I expected that you & your esteemed 9/11 Truther colleagues would assist me in finding its errors so that I could change my opinions. You would have been doing a great service not just for me personally, but the whole truth movement. Your book review -- based on having read the book and found both its strengths and flaws -- could have put to rest a whole genre of fringe 9/11 lunatic speculation.
Your admission that you started but haven't even finished the textbook puts your previous statements about your open-mind into question. Because of this fact, I doubt that you can even articulate exactly what Dr. Wood's theories are. Here's a clue: she presents scant few. The real gems are the evidence that few others present much less address.
I saw how you wasted your time -- with Frank Legge. You ought to be offering a public apology for that one. It was certainly easy for even me to find the glaring weaknesses in that piece of work (e.g., being based on highly questionable "recovered FDR" data from a dubious source, unfounded assumptions about altimeter limitations at low-altitude and high-speed.) When researching this after the fact, it turns out these flaws were or should have been known to you before you lent your name as a co-author.
So what was truly baseless and a distraction from real progress in understanding the 9/11 events?
Again, I am not saying Dr. Wood's textbook is the gospel, but it does have nuggets of truth to be mined and incorporated into the modifications to other theories. The big one was the energy requirements (as well as logistics) of content pulverization which fits squarely into the realm of physics, your area of interest.
Seeing how it appears that your preconceived notions of the textbook's invalidity prevents you from even finishing it, then as Jonathon Cole's gatekeeper, how about you passing it along to him... as per one of my original conditions. Certainly that shouldn't be too much to ask.
All the best,
Maxwell C. Bridges