By Maxwell C. Bridges
Published on Truth & Shadows
The recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:
In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (wrongly) by the scientifically weaker yeomen of the 9/11 Truth movement to explain all (or most) of the observed destruction features.
Case in point – nano-thermite reaches 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; massive overkill amounts would be required.
(B) The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink. Again the math suggests massive overkill amounts.
(C) Is nano-thermite an incendiary useful for cutting, or an explosive that employs massive changes in air pressure to achieve destruction? As an incendiary, nano-thermite would be less than ideal to coordinate and generate the observed explosive energy of dustification. As an explosive, nano-thermite does not explain the steady and long burn of the under-rubble fires. Moreover, wouldn’t such explosives leave audible signatures and decibel levels that NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder confidently states weren’t present?
(D) Massive overkill amounts of nano-thermite (or conventional chemical incendiaries/explosives) under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(E) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain the anomalous damage to vehicles. How does nano-thermite explain unique burn patterns that seemingly “cooked off” things like plastic door handles and gas caps yet didn’t affect surrounding paper and other more easily combustible materials? In some cases, the fires appear to have originated inside the vehicle.
So if nano-thermite has been incorrectly extrapolated by the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to explain observed destruction features that it cannot, then we are left with a void that must be filled, evidence in need of an explanation.
Let’s talk directed energy weapons (DEW). Here we have a Catch-22 situation whereby most of us can only speculate beyond our level of expertise and knowledge. Those with the credentials to talk knowingly would most likely reveal classified information and thereby violate top-secret or national security protocols and be held liable.
Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative that began in the early 1980s was not some glorified public works project for the overly educated with no expectation of producing something useful for the Department of Defence (DoD). What secret technology and exotic weapons resulted? On September 10, 2001 the DoD could not account for $2.3 trillion; where did it go and what did it pay for?
You dismiss directed energy weapons (DEW) too easily and what anomalous side-effects might be created by its energy source (e.g., nuclear devices, cold fusion, HAARP, hurricane Erin & Tesla Coils?) A key word in its description is ”directed.” They pointed it where they wanted the “energy” focused, like a microwave “weapon” that instantly heats the residual moisture or water molecules within content into steam whose rapid expansion builds pressure that blows apart the “container” of that water (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). “Dustification.” Pulverization. Recall that fragments of human remains were found in the dusty debris on rooftops of neighboring WTC buildings.
You do not do justice to the topic of DEW; or to Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook ("Where Did the Towers Go?"). 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.
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 ’60s. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960, so this is not out of the range of possibilities.)
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 (under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs) and aftermath. Tactical nuclear weapons and DEW exist; cold-fusion research is further than we’re told; they would not be withheld from the selection of tools, and were probably promoted heavily by generals to the planners and decision makers; the side-effects of such exotic weapons on, say, vehicles and metal are key and signature.
Here is how I would re-write your conclusion:
Published on Truth & Shadows
The recent article "AE911Truth FAQ #6: What’s Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?" by misters Cole & Gage concluded with:
“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.”Really? Does the evidence actually support well the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis, and in particular nano-thermite, which was found in the dust at the WTC?
In dispute here is not the discovery of nano-thermite in the dust or its deployment as one of the mechanisms of the WTC destruction. As a secondary or redundant mechanism, it does not have to address all of the features of destruction. The issue is that nano-thermite has been extracted (wrongly) by the scientifically weaker yeomen of the 9/11 Truth movement to explain all (or most) of the observed destruction features.
Case in point – nano-thermite reaches 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; massive overkill amounts would be required.
(B) The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink. Again the math suggests massive overkill amounts.
(C) Is nano-thermite an incendiary useful for cutting, or an explosive that employs massive changes in air pressure to achieve destruction? As an incendiary, nano-thermite would be less than ideal to coordinate and generate the observed explosive energy of dustification. As an explosive, nano-thermite does not explain the steady and long burn of the under-rubble fires. Moreover, wouldn’t such explosives leave audible signatures and decibel levels that NIST’s Dr. Shyam Sunder confidently states weren’t present?
(D) Massive overkill amounts of nano-thermite (or conventional chemical incendiaries/explosives) under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.
(E) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain the anomalous damage to vehicles. How does nano-thermite explain unique burn patterns that seemingly “cooked off” things like plastic door handles and gas caps yet didn’t affect surrounding paper and other more easily combustible materials? In some cases, the fires appear to have originated inside the vehicle.
So if nano-thermite has been incorrectly extrapolated by the yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to explain observed destruction features that it cannot, then we are left with a void that must be filled, evidence in need of an explanation.
Let’s talk directed energy weapons (DEW). Here we have a Catch-22 situation whereby most of us can only speculate beyond our level of expertise and knowledge. Those with the credentials to talk knowingly would most likely reveal classified information and thereby violate top-secret or national security protocols and be held liable.
Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative that began in the early 1980s was not some glorified public works project for the overly educated with no expectation of producing something useful for the Department of Defence (DoD). What secret technology and exotic weapons resulted? On September 10, 2001 the DoD could not account for $2.3 trillion; where did it go and what did it pay for?
You dismiss directed energy weapons (DEW) too easily and what anomalous side-effects might be created by its energy source (e.g., nuclear devices, cold fusion, HAARP, hurricane Erin & Tesla Coils?) A key word in its description is ”directed.” They pointed it where they wanted the “energy” focused, like a microwave “weapon” that instantly heats the residual moisture or water molecules within content into steam whose rapid expansion builds pressure that blows apart the “container” of that water (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). “Dustification.” Pulverization. Recall that fragments of human remains were found in the dusty debris on rooftops of neighboring WTC buildings.
You do not do justice to the topic of DEW; or to Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook ("Where Did the Towers Go?"). 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.
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 ’60s. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960, so this is not out of the range of possibilities.)
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 (under the noses of bomb sniffing dogs) and aftermath. Tactical nuclear weapons and DEW exist; cold-fusion research is further than we’re told; they would not be withheld from the selection of tools, and were probably promoted heavily by generals to the planners and decision makers; the side-effects of such exotic weapons on, say, vehicles and metal are key and signature.
Here is how I would re-write your conclusion:
"We support the DEW hypothesis because it is supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction does not address all of the evidence and requirements."I encourage you to make another(?) thorough reading of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook and mine it for nuggets of truth.
2 comments:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2011/06/on-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis.html#more
Thank you for your excellent post. It's a breath of fresh air finding someone who has actually begun to address the evidence. As you read on in the book you will come to see other examples of the type of physics involved. Dr. Wood does not speculate. She shows the evidence and she shows known mechanisms of producing the same phenomena.
There is nothing in her book that can be refuted -- which is why no one has refuted it. The ad himinem piece by Richard Gage et al does not refute Dr. Wood's evidence. It merely refutes their own propaganda of what they tell people here work is about, not what her work actually is about. The nagging question that should be in everyone's mind who has seen the ae911truth hit piece is the following: Why would an organization claiming to be interested in the truth write a dishonest piece that misrepresents and ridicules sound research they are unable to refute?
In your May 11, 2011 blog post,
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2011/05/directed-energy-weapons.html
you gave a link to a page showing correspondance between you and David Chandler. From this exchange, it appears you bought a copy of Dr. Wood's book and sent it to David Chandler. That was over a month ago, so I assume he has read the book by now. Have you heard from him?
Thanks for being willing to re-evaluate your own thoughts about what happened that day. You have increased my faith in humanity :) Keep up the good work.
Best wishes,
-Abe
Dear Mr. PookztA,
You write: "There is nothing in [Dr. Judy Wood's] book that can be refuted -- which is why no one has refuted it."
I disagree. It seems to me that she was driving at HAARP and Tesla DEW that sucked their energy from the hurricane off the coast of NYC and was coincidentally of little notice by the weathermen in corporate media.
I agree that the pieces were there and exist, but not sure they connect so Occam Razor. I'm still partial to a cold-fusion DEW.
In any event, I find that what is important is to locate the nuggets of truth in her evidence and being sure that hypothesis de jour addresses it adequately.
Yes, my credit card has been generous in purchasing Dr. Wood's textbook for those with some influence in the 9/11 Truth Community who, due to the "crazy" propaganda leveled for years against Dr. Wood, would have a biased view and not be inclined to invest the money themselves. Least of all a high school teacher on summer vacation. Feeding the sheep.
Your assumption would be wrong that David Chandler has already read the book by now. I'd give him more time. It is a textbook. It is slow reading and inspires much contemplation. It is the summer. It took me almost 4 months to read it when I had the excuse of cold weather to sit inside to read. Mr. Chandler will be looking for ways to discredit it through the physics, and I do not doubt that he'll find some weak areas to poke at. What will be important is him seeing the broader array of evidence and that super-dooper nano-thermite doesn't explain it. Another energy source must be sought.
Be careful in how much sainthood you annoint to Dr. Wood, and how much villification is painted onto A&E 9/11 Truth. We're all duped useful idiots here who are still being played in one form or another. My advice to you is to be open to the criticism of aspects of Dr. Wood's work; not only will it not be sufficient to discredit the majority of it, but it will serve to quicken that which was weak.
Post a Comment