{Bridges: I did some minor cyber-sleuthing in an attempt to reach these leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. I posted this as a technical question in the Contact Us section of AE911 Truth website [for Mr. Gage.] I posted this as a Contact Us message to 911SpeakOut.org [for Mr. Cole.] I put this into an email to an old email address that uses the domain of a well-know 9/11 website [for Mr. Roberts.]}
Dear Mr. Jonathan Cole, Mr. Richard Gage, and Mr. Gregg Roberts,
Maybe I am the ultimate "duped useful idiot", because evidence at various points has convinced me of pods on planes, nano-thermite, DEW, milli-nukes, no-planes, CIT flyover, simVictims, hollow towers, etc. Of course, convincing debunking has had me cycle away from many of these, after which yet more evidence and analysis brings some of them back to the forefront as my current position.
Your recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" does not do justice to the topic or Dr. Judy Wood's textbook. I encourage you to make another thorough reading of her book and mine it for nuggets of truth.
I'm not saying that elements of her conclusions might not ultimately belong in the disinformation category. The danger that we must overcome when faced with concerted covert/overt disinformation campaigns (which is all around 9/11) is in too quickly dismissing a person and all of their conclusions, which then consequently dismisses all of the evidence and truths upon which their conclusions are built.
This is in fact what has happened and is happening with Dr. Judy Wood's efforts. It is good and well when your scientific and scholarly efforts find issues with her analysis and conclusions. But when your own theories that the Truth Movement lines up to march behind do not address the glaring evidence that Dr. Wood at least attempts, then your theories come up short. Worse, you know it.
Let us assume that nano-thermite was found in the dust and was one of the mechanisms deployed in the towers' destruction. Still, nano-thermite does not address all of the features of the destruction, and you do the 9/11 Truth Movement a major disservice when you allow this mechanism to be extracted and applied as an explanation for all that was observed.
Case in point, nano-thermite does reach extremely high temperatures quickly, but:
(A) Nano-thermite's very fast burn rate makes it an unlikely candidate to account for the DURATION of the underground fires. Do the math; you'd need massive overkill amounts.
(B) Nano-thermite is an incidiary useful for cutting. The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink, whereby nano-thermite not only would be less than ideal to generate this explosive energy in a controlled fashion, but also would necessitate again massive overkill amounts.
(C) Massive overkill amounts introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(D) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain all of the damage to vehicles, like those where fires originated ~inside~ the vehicle, unique burn patterns, and destruction of things like plastic door handles and gas caps. [This is major area where your article comes damn close to exposing itself as disinformation.]
A nugget of truth mined from the Russian disinformation agent, Dimitri K., is that in order to obtain building permits for the towers, they had to have an approved demolition plan; nuclear devices were supposedly in those demolition plans from the 60's. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960.)
Dr. Wood unwittingly debunks Dimitri's thesis of "deep underground nukes", because she presents undisputed evidence of the undamaged bathtub and only 3 or 4 of 7 subway lines being obstructed, as well as seismic evidence. Moreover, she calculates why dustification was required. Had the perpetrators not gone to overkill measures, massive chunks of building (like the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 that should have tumbled over or what traditional controlled demolition creates) falling from great heights would have had massive amounts of kinetic energy and been sufficient to damage the bathtub. Any significant crack of the bathtub walls would have flooded the WTC basements, the subway tubes including the ones going under the Hudson, and the basements of many other NYC buildings.
Thus, we must acknowledge that dustification of structure and content weren't just flukes of an overly efficient overkill demolition (as would be expected of a tight paramilitary operation); dustification was a demolition goal to limit the scope of destruction to the WTC and to leave the intact bathtub & subways for rebuilding. As such, we must work backwards, recognize this dustification is a massive energy sink, and theorize what could be its energy source.
Conventional explosives and nano-thermite as primary mechanisms have the same issues: massive overkill amounts are required and would present more risk of exposing the operation during their installation and aftermath.
This is why I've been (until recently) championing milli-nukes. Multiple fusion-triggered fission devices per tower can explain the dustification, the foundry-level fires burning for months under the rubble (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material), measured radiation levels, damage to vehicles, and first responder ailments.
It turns out that DEW can also account for the energy source, but this has always been spun inside and outside the 9/11 Truth Movement as "space-based DEW." Because the dustification of the towers began within the structure at the supposed plane impact level and not tippy-top down, space-based DEW get ruled out. (Space-based DEW is something to keep in consideration for the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of just the main edifice of WTC-4 that was cut at a neat line from its relatively undamaged North wing. The woefully unreported HUGE hurricane off of the coast of NY could hide what was happening in space.)
I'm not finished with Dr. Wood's textbook yet, but she is getting me to waffle on this milli-nuke premise. I'll be damned if she isn't making a convincing case for cold fusion, which is making a come-back in the scientific community. [Is it a coincidence that the nuclear scientist who debunked cold fusion on behalf of the US govt in 1989, that the nuclear scientist who ruled out the use of any type of nuke on 9/11, and that the nuclear scientist who discovered nano-thermite in the dust and allowed the minions of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate nano-thermite into explaining evidence (e.g., the ~duration~ of underground fires, the dustification of content) is none other than Dr. Steven Jones?]
DEW from cold-fusion needs to be seriously considered.
I have a growing library of 9/11 literature and DVDs. Next to Chandler's DVDs and Dr. Griffin's researched books, Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming a highly valued and treasured addition to my library that I feel all serious researchers should have. Alone her collection of color pictures that are correlated to map positions justifies its purchase and study, because it brings into perspective the scope of the destruction (and the limits of the destruction e.g., the bathtub). I thought the 2nd half that goes into DEW would be disinformation that we'd want to show our grandchildren how our generation was played. I'm discovering that this 2nd half is not... at least not yet as far as I've read.
Your conclusion was: "We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence."
Sorry, my response is "Bullshit." Exactly the opposite. Go back and try again.
Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
Related Discussions:
- Responses from Volunteers at A&E for 9/11 Truth.
- Responses from David Chandler (on 2011-05-19 when Jonathon Cole said "Don't even waste time responding.")
Dear Mr. Jonathan Cole, Mr. Richard Gage, and Mr. Gregg Roberts,
Maybe I am the ultimate "duped useful idiot", because evidence at various points has convinced me of pods on planes, nano-thermite, DEW, milli-nukes, no-planes, CIT flyover, simVictims, hollow towers, etc. Of course, convincing debunking has had me cycle away from many of these, after which yet more evidence and analysis brings some of them back to the forefront as my current position.
Your recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" does not do justice to the topic or Dr. Judy Wood's textbook. I encourage you to make another thorough reading of her book and mine it for nuggets of truth.
I'm not saying that elements of her conclusions might not ultimately belong in the disinformation category. The danger that we must overcome when faced with concerted covert/overt disinformation campaigns (which is all around 9/11) is in too quickly dismissing a person and all of their conclusions, which then consequently dismisses all of the evidence and truths upon which their conclusions are built.
This is in fact what has happened and is happening with Dr. Judy Wood's efforts. It is good and well when your scientific and scholarly efforts find issues with her analysis and conclusions. But when your own theories that the Truth Movement lines up to march behind do not address the glaring evidence that Dr. Wood at least attempts, then your theories come up short. Worse, you know it.
Let us assume that nano-thermite was found in the dust and was one of the mechanisms deployed in the towers' destruction. Still, nano-thermite does not address all of the features of the destruction, and you do the 9/11 Truth Movement a major disservice when you allow this mechanism to be extracted and applied as an explanation for all that was observed.
Case in point, nano-thermite does reach extremely high temperatures quickly, but:
(A) Nano-thermite's very fast burn rate makes it an unlikely candidate to account for the DURATION of the underground fires. Do the math; you'd need massive overkill amounts.
(B) Nano-thermite is an incidiary useful for cutting. The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink, whereby nano-thermite not only would be less than ideal to generate this explosive energy in a controlled fashion, but also would necessitate again massive overkill amounts.
(C) Massive overkill amounts introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(D) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain all of the damage to vehicles, like those where fires originated ~inside~ the vehicle, unique burn patterns, and destruction of things like plastic door handles and gas caps. [This is major area where your article comes damn close to exposing itself as disinformation.]
A nugget of truth mined from the Russian disinformation agent, Dimitri K., is that in order to obtain building permits for the towers, they had to have an approved demolition plan; nuclear devices were supposedly in those demolition plans from the 60's. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960.)
Dr. Wood unwittingly debunks Dimitri's thesis of "deep underground nukes", because she presents undisputed evidence of the undamaged bathtub and only 3 or 4 of 7 subway lines being obstructed, as well as seismic evidence. Moreover, she calculates why dustification was required. Had the perpetrators not gone to overkill measures, massive chunks of building (like the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 that should have tumbled over or what traditional controlled demolition creates) falling from great heights would have had massive amounts of kinetic energy and been sufficient to damage the bathtub. Any significant crack of the bathtub walls would have flooded the WTC basements, the subway tubes including the ones going under the Hudson, and the basements of many other NYC buildings.
Thus, we must acknowledge that dustification of structure and content weren't just flukes of an overly efficient overkill demolition (as would be expected of a tight paramilitary operation); dustification was a demolition goal to limit the scope of destruction to the WTC and to leave the intact bathtub & subways for rebuilding. As such, we must work backwards, recognize this dustification is a massive energy sink, and theorize what could be its energy source.
Conventional explosives and nano-thermite as primary mechanisms have the same issues: massive overkill amounts are required and would present more risk of exposing the operation during their installation and aftermath.
This is why I've been (until recently) championing milli-nukes. Multiple fusion-triggered fission devices per tower can explain the dustification, the foundry-level fires burning for months under the rubble (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material), measured radiation levels, damage to vehicles, and first responder ailments.
It turns out that DEW can also account for the energy source, but this has always been spun inside and outside the 9/11 Truth Movement as "space-based DEW." Because the dustification of the towers began within the structure at the supposed plane impact level and not tippy-top down, space-based DEW get ruled out. (Space-based DEW is something to keep in consideration for the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of just the main edifice of WTC-4 that was cut at a neat line from its relatively undamaged North wing. The woefully unreported HUGE hurricane off of the coast of NY could hide what was happening in space.)
I'm not finished with Dr. Wood's textbook yet, but she is getting me to waffle on this milli-nuke premise. I'll be damned if she isn't making a convincing case for cold fusion, which is making a come-back in the scientific community. [Is it a coincidence that the nuclear scientist who debunked cold fusion on behalf of the US govt in 1989, that the nuclear scientist who ruled out the use of any type of nuke on 9/11, and that the nuclear scientist who discovered nano-thermite in the dust and allowed the minions of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate nano-thermite into explaining evidence (e.g., the ~duration~ of underground fires, the dustification of content) is none other than Dr. Steven Jones?]
DEW from cold-fusion needs to be seriously considered.
I have a growing library of 9/11 literature and DVDs. Next to Chandler's DVDs and Dr. Griffin's researched books, Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming a highly valued and treasured addition to my library that I feel all serious researchers should have. Alone her collection of color pictures that are correlated to map positions justifies its purchase and study, because it brings into perspective the scope of the destruction (and the limits of the destruction e.g., the bathtub). I thought the 2nd half that goes into DEW would be disinformation that we'd want to show our grandchildren how our generation was played. I'm discovering that this 2nd half is not... at least not yet as far as I've read.
Your conclusion was: "We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence."
Sorry, my response is "Bullshit." Exactly the opposite. Go back and try again.
Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
Related Discussions:
- Responses from Volunteers at A&E for 9/11 Truth.
- Responses from David Chandler (on 2011-05-19 when Jonathon Cole said "Don't even waste time responding.")
10 comments:
It is not Dr. Wood who started the "space beam" "theory", but this was a rumor was started by Steven Jones and promoted by Greg Jenkins. I have read the book and the statement by David Chandler that Dr. Wood has been reincarnated is totally in error. He should read the book where did the Where Did The Towers Go, and then reexamine his "evidence" wherein he will discover his error.
You write:
"[Mr. Chandler] should read the book, "Where Did the Towers Go" [by Dr. Judy Wood], and then re-examine his 'evidence' wherein he will discover his error."
As coincidences will have it, Mr. Chandler's impediment of not having the book should be solved this week, for I secured his permission to purchase one out of my own pocket and have it sent to him as a gift. His summer vacation from teaching high schools physics will soon be upon him, and we can only hope the lesser demands on his time allow him to read this book.
Ralph, do you have a links or references where the initiation of the "[Dr. Wood] space beam" occurred, implicating Dr. Steven Jones, or where Dr. Jenkins promotes it?
A programming error within the blog was preventing me from posting under my own name. Let's see if this fixes it.
Yes, actually I do have several links, to wit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d98Raj0qZc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG3i-Ymm3Uc
This two video links should be very informative on the "beams", etc.
Maxwell- Your personal evolution has been refreshing to witness. Thanks for having the courage to being open to an unbiased look and assessment of the evidence. So many tend to cling to beliefs, rather than being open and thinking. You are a great example of courage in these times.
Dear Mr. Godward,
Thank you for your kind words.
Your statements regarding "clinging to beliefs" has resonance with me on many fronts. I question myself: am I being clingy to some theories? I'm certainly not clinging to thermite. That so many in the 9/11 Truth Movement do cling to it beyond the scope of its applicability and ability to explain the evidence is a testament to how well the message is controlled. And as a sorry explanation, we hear that 9/11 Truth Movement has to narrowly focus on the glaring things (like freefall and new investigatiosn) so that the sheep can be gently led into revelation and consequent action.
I was fine with such halting measures for damn near most of the first 9/11 decade, but not for the next. The sheep need to be shocked into stampeding, otherwise no course correction will be possible as the wolf dines on us one at a time.
Yesterday morning and this morning on NPR, I heard things that sounded like another example of sheep clinging to a belief with regards to the true nature of al Quaeda. I believe that al Quaeda truly was a database of known terrorists maintained by one of our own agencies. When the corporate media reports on those claiming to be "the al Quaeda of [some country]", I ask if this attribution was first applied to them by the media (at the behest or suggestion of the US govt) and if such personal boasting (if true) isn't just some latter-day opportunistic branding of "al Quaeda" in the very spirit of McDonald's and name recognition. No need to build up your own terrorism brand for your land when, without cost, the media will knowingly or otherwise offer you the franchise for that country: a ready-made boogey-man banner to march behind against the evil empire of capitalism.
Yesterday, NPR likened al Quaeda to being that of a corporation with global franchises, HR policies, division managers, and transaction receipts, compliments of Osama bin Laden's leadership, education in economics, and CIA training as embodied by some of the documents, computers, and flash drives taken from his Pakastani compound -- even when the real unarmed, thin, and ailing man couldn't be taken alive.
Today, NPR speculated on the (corporate) successor to OBL being some "al Quaeda" number two man in Egypt: the next boogey-man to be afraid of.
When I contemplate all of the silly notions that I cling to in my beliefs, "al Quaeda" being a sometimes coordinated loose network of terrorists as depicted by corporate media has merits in my books, but only when al Quaeda's origins as an agency (payroll?) database of terrorists -- many once and/or still in the employ of said agency or govt entity -- is kept within the frame. Makes sense then how their actions could be coordinated, by whom, and for what grand global chessboard scheme.
This is a more comprehensive list of links to Steven Jones being the SOURCE of Dr. Wood promoting "space beams", wherein of course there NEVER are any audio recordings, e-mails or video in support thereof of Dr. Wood stating same because it does NOT EXIST. Steven Jones is the source of this prevarication restating it over and over until people accept it as true and then it gets regurgitated over and over, when an investigation of same would prove conclusively that Jones is the SOURCE and not Dr. Wood.
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2011/05/directed-energy-weapons.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d98Raj0qZc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG3i-Ymm3Uc
As Mark Twain observed: "A lie can travel halfway across the world while truth is still getting its boots on!" In this age of E-Mail and Video on the Internet a lie can go around the world several times over before truth can get its boots on.
Thank you for your research, Ralph.
Opps! Errata. Should have posted this as an additional link that Steven Jones is the SOURCE of the "space beams." Fingers lost connection with knowledge posited in my brain and posted an incorrect link.
Should be:
http://stj911.org/faq.html
Post a Comment