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.

Eating Tin-Foil Hat

{The following is an extract from an exchange on the Mopar politics forum.}

It wasn't about going after Osama bin Laden or the Taliban. It was about building a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan that the Taliban rejected. Moreover, after 9/11, the Taliban offered to hand over OBL, providing the US offered proof that he did it. The US didn't, and the FBI still hasn't listed OBL on its most-wanted list for 9/11, because of a "lack of evidence", their words, not mine.

On the Iraq front, invasion was on the table before the neo-cons even took office. They were looking for any excuse and tried to make them complicit for 9/11. The prize was their oil fields. Another prize was also establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East, because the Saudi's (and OBL himself) did not want US military forces in the holy lands any more. (Whatever OBL wants, OBL gets. He's one of our assets, all the way up to 9/11... and beyond his likely death probably more than a few years ago.)

All that nonsense you write about UN resolutions and Saddam being in violation? He wasn't. And in fact, he complied! He did let weapons inspectors back in before the deadline, gave them access, etc. The UN weapons inspectors themselves begged for more time. But No-oooo! Bush was going to invade Iraq for its oil fields to divy up and give to his oil crony backers no matter what.

BTW, where are those weapons of mass destruction?

Bush needed 9/11, because without it, America never would have supported invasion of Afghanistan, period. And Iraq was highly questionable as well, because Saddam was very much contained in the no-fly-zone.

Bush needed 9/11, because he needed to pave over for good-and-gone the evidence of the misdeeds of his father's administration coming due, as well as the Pentagon's unaccounted for $2.3 trillion in transactions and many other corporate criminal cases against his loyal supporters (Enron anyone?)

Bush needed 9/11, because there was insurance money to scoop up, insider trading to take advantage of, and the US economy to take down several pegs. Foreclosures and bankruptcies are bad for real people, but not for those with means who are happy to buy up for pennies on the dollar real brick-and-mortar establishments (and not silly paper stocks). Yes, I'm saying the pile-driving of our economy was planned and desired by those elite who pull Bush & Cheney's strings, because they are globalist, not patriotic nationalist (and certainly not simplistic loyal football fanatics.)