The following is an exchange with a 9/11 Truther who supports nuking of the towers.
Expand All /Hide All
Bruecke : Informed Speculation
July 27, 2011
Dear Dr. Ward, I know nothing about 9/11 definitely, so take this more as "informed speculation." I read Dr. Wood's textbook and discovered that her case for directed energy weapons is better than the case I had been championing for milli-nukes. However, even DEW needs an energy source: cold-fusion, fusion-triggered fission, Tesla-hurricanes...? The remnants from the DEW energy source could give off the same clues as milli-nukes, while avoiding some issues like seismic signatures, uncontrollable blast wave, heat wave, etc. The copious amounts of unburnt paper is a clue to me that milli-nukes might not have been used on the towers. I wouldn't go so far as to say WTC-7 was demolished using conventional techniques. On this matter we can probably rely on Dr. Shyam Sunder who confidently debunked conventional explosives because it lacked the appropriate audio/decibel signature. Weak? For sure, but Dr. Sunder would not have used it if he didn't know that the true cause was something else. As for WTC-6 and its big bad-ass crater? Could have been a milli-nuke, which might explain the anomalous side-effects that affected vehicles on that street perpendicular to it and next to the WTC-7. But I'm also leaving the door open for space-based DEW to have made the crater as well as the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5 and cut the WTC-4 main edifice down at a line with the WTC-4 North wing. A few devices within the towers probably brought them down. Remember the "spire" that stood for a few seconds after the tower around it was pulverized or peeled off? Would have been ideal to plant a DEW device pointing up and other pointing down and timed appropriately. DEW microwaved the water molecules trapped in content, turned it into steam, which then expanded its volume to tear apart the content (e.g., drywall, concrete, humans). Explains the copious amounts of pulverized dust exhibited in the destruction from the earliest phases; why paper wasn't affected; why the interior side of the exterior walls were so "clean" of drywall and paint; ... The evidence presented in Dr. Wood's textbook needs to be addressed by whatever is the theory of the day. According to her, seismic evidence debunks nukes. My understanding morphs and waffles.
Bruecke : Pay It Forward
July 28, 2011
Dear Dr. Ward, You sound in need of an attitude adjustment, particularly as it pertains to Dr. Wood. Do you have her book? Have you read it? Book reports sans book don't cut it. This disinformation and smear campaign against Dr. Wood has been going for a long time. Ever wonder why? Even I was taken under its spell until I dug deeper. Wood Smear Campaign I do not hold Dr. Wood up as the Lady Madonna, nor do I worship every utterance from her mouth or pen. If you can disprove DEW, more power to you. I'd like to hear it, so I can change my tune yet again. "Nuclear residue" could support either milli-nukes or DEW. The pulverized destruction was a massive energy sink requiring a significant energy source. A "nuclear engine" for DEW is not out of the question. In the 1980's and the Star Wars agenda, some ideas involved detonating nuclear devices and channeling/focusing various wavelength energy on distant targets before the explosion destroyed the entire apparatus itself. The point being, the power source for the destruction needs to be separated from the mechanism of the destruction. I used to be a two-trick pony 9/11 Truther: video fakery and milli-nukes. Since completing Dr. Wood's book, I've unharnessed milli-nukes and mounted the DEW pony. Why? What are the factors that can be more or less dialed into a nuclear device? Blast wave, heat wave, radiation, and EMP. If milli-nukes were used, EMP wouldn't be so wide-spread given the detonation happened within the towers with the blast radius dialed in. I have issues with the blast wave and certainly with the heat wave. I think the blast waves from multiple devices would have been more noticeable blasting right out the window slits and significantly faster than free-fall, and would have been difficult (but not impossible) to direct. The heat wave of a nuclear device... that's where DEW fits better. Where are the charred pieces of building? Why didn't we observe flaming debris? Why wasn't paper incinerated? Contemplate again what directed energy at specific frequencies could accomplish, what finger prints would it leave, etc. I think you are probably right on the money to keep hammering home the nuclear residue and the subtle scientific deception (of NIST, Dr. Jones, et al) in framing the measured nuclear residue in a manner that "rules it within the limits of 'background' radiation" and "rules out nuclear weapons of nature X, Y, and Z", never mind that it doesn't rule out nuclear weapons of A, B, or C or nuclear power mechanisms for DEW. If you do not have Dr. Wood's textbook, I encourage you to get it (and to debunk it if you can). The reason I purchased it was to mine it for nuggets of truth to support my milli-nuke premise. Since then, I've changed my tune. I do put my money where my mouth is in a "pay it forward" sort of a way. If the age-old smearing of Dr. Wood has you hesitant in shelling out money on something "you are sure is disinformation", then allow me to purchase a copy for you. (Contact me through the Vatic Clerk with shipping instructions or other negotiations on how I can pony up without invading your privacy.) The caveat to this offer is that you will give this textbook an objective evaluation, mining it for nuggets of truth and debunking it where you can. I want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly. Thereafter, if the textbook has redeemed itself in your estimation, you are then under obligation to "pay it forward" to someone else (preferably an influential individual in the 9/11 Truth Movement like what I am doing with you). Sincerely, Bruecke
Bruecke : Only a Nuke Can't Do It
July 29, 2011
Dear Dr. Ward, I'll respond to your postings in reverse order. You wrote: "BTW, the only books I need are Basic Chemistry, Physics, Math. Not some BS about what ifs... REAL FACTS." Where are you getting your REAL FACTS? What do Basic Chemistry, Physics, and Math books publish regarding the evidence on 9/11? This is a cop out. You have absolutely zero-basis for calling it "BS about what ifs" until you have read it. It is not her website. Your book report sans book does not cut it. As a medical doctor, you can well afford purchasing a book for yourself, if for no other reason than to satisfy your curiousity or to once and for all expose BS that you (at this point) think is in her book. Knowing how her reputation has so tainted the perceptions of 9/11 truth seekers, I offer you the book in a "pay it forward" fashion, that you have neither accepted nor rejected. If the book proves to be complete and utter BS, you obviously won't be paying it forward to anyone. But, you'd have to first prove that. Saying it is BS without even cracking the book does not do that. I was recommending the book when I wasn't even 1/2 way done with it without knowing whether or not the other half would be 100% disinformation. It has great pictures of the destruction that are correlated on tables to positions on maps to give one a true perspective of what they are seeing. This alone will solidify its place as a valued 9/11 textbook for your library. I bring this up in reference to the types of books you need. You also need books that pull together the evidence. Dr. Wood did a good job of separating presenting the evidence from making too many leading and forward statements regarding the exact mechanisms of destruction. Even after having finished it, I don't recall too many statements that said precisely what or how it was done (as you attempt); it was more about opening our eyes that other technology exists that can explain the evidence better. You wrote: Woodhead's BS. Doesn't exist. No way to power. Could NOT produce all of the evidence in the time needed. ONLY A NUKE CAN DO IT. On the topic of the individual towers, is that your position that "A NUKE" per tower took them out? If so, you are debunked. Where was that single NUKE placed? When I was on the milli-nukes pony (from the Anonymous Physicist), the destruction made more sense with 3 to 6 milli-nukes per tower, because the destruction started up high and had destinctive "explosive" stages. FTR, Dr. Wood debunks "a nuke" with the help of seismic data, among other things. Read about it in the copy I'm more than happy to "pay it forward" into your hands. When you write "Woodhead's BS", I assume that you refer to directed energy weapons. You seem to say DEW "doesn't exist." Not true. We just don't know the depth or scope of their DEW portfolios, because it is all top-secret and national security. Common sense says that if scientific papers explored and talked about any aspect of directed energy, the Pentagon will have found (or commissioned) a way to weaponize it. Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program was not a glorified public works job creation program for the overly education; it certainly wasn't missing a mandate to produce something useful or tangible. Most important of all, you seem to say "no way to power (DEW)" and thereby talk right on past what I wrote. Here are ways they could have powered DEW, whereby not all of them are mutual exclusive. Method 1: Plug DEW into the wall. When the "planes" hit the towers and shit was hitting the fan, it would have been real easy for NY Public Service power into the tower to be re-routed from the normal circuits to whatever big-ass extension cord cable they dangled down an elevator shaft, while emergency lighting showed the way for people to exit. Method 2: Cold-fusion or fusion/fission power cell, which would then account for the residual radiation that your research goes to town on. Method 3: A Tesla Coil combined with the energy of the massive hurricane Erin off the coast of NY. Least likely, but listed because why else would corporate mass media conspire to bury all weather reports on 9/11 that talk about Erin? Because you capitalized "ONLY A NUKE CAN DO IT", this requires qualifications. If you stick with singular "A NUKE" per tower, even I won't jump from my DEW pony back onto a nukes pony, because the evidence doesn't support this.
Bruecke : Third And Final Offer
July 31, 2011
Dear Dr. Ward, The discussion started with the re-posted article from you on nukes in September 2010. Dr. Wood's textbook was published in February 2011, and those are the weeds into which I took the discussion. In a sincere attempt to get us onto the same page in our reading (whether or not we will agree on the validity of the content), I've already made two "pay-it-forward" offers of supplying you with her textbook. I want to know the good, the bad, and the ugly about her textbook. If I'm the duped useful idiot, I want someone to show me where I'm being duped. With regards to your work and the 300 references it contains. Kudos. Dr. Wood has made statements why she thinks nukes didn't do it. Moreover, she publishes evidence that must be addressed by whatever conspiracy theory we champion. Why not accept my third (and final) offer of your own copy of her book so that you can mine it for nuggets of truth to support nukes while shining a light on what you consider BS and disinformation? See how nukes and DEW could have points of alignment, like nukes being some form of generator for DEW. It isn't my place to debunk nukes. That's my Plan B should DEW be completely discredited. It is, however, my place to mine nuggets of truth from various sources -- Dr. Wood and Dr. Ward inclusive -- and form my own speculative plausible explanation in my mind for the "how" of the destruction.
No comments:
Post a Comment