x103 Señor El Once : to the absurd, and planting doubt in even highly gullible persons
Peter writes:
I think Dr. Judy Woods – is an example of pushng to the absurd and planting doubt in even highly gulible persons. I’m not saying she’s a hired gov’t dis-informant but her theory is so implausible I think it would cause most rational persons to say, “Nahhh. She is a perfect anecdote for Dr. Steven Jones (thermite) theory which I find credible. These examples pertain to 9/11.
I have Dr. Wood's textbook and have read it from cover-to-cover. I'll be the first to admit that (IMHO) Dr. Wood purposely inserted absurd elements and distractions, which include the Hutchison Effect, free-energy from space, downplaying hot-spots, and weak nuclear analysis. In her defense, I view them as "get-out-assassination" moves. [She did lose one of her students under suspicious circumstances, and he was the one helping her with her website which kind of stagnated in 2006.]
Her book is very crafty. Those who say "her theory" obviously haven't read it, because she has little in this regard. She introduces concepts; she presents lots of evidence that any theory-du-jour has to adequately address in order to be considered valid. [Her textbook is worth the investment just for the collection of images and correlation to map positions to give one a much better understanding of the WTC destruction.] But she has nothing that ties together concepts or evidence into a cohesive whole or into a decisive statement: "this is how the WTC was destroyed." Nope, it ain't there. And also what isn't there is anything that addresses criticism of things from her website (e.g., Dr. Jenkins), which is a shame. She could have fixed errors from her website instead of re-hashing them (e.g., cars towed to bridge). She could have addressed other concepts, like those from the Anonymous Physicist and the nuclear angle. She could have included more data points, such as other videos of the expiring spire that clearly show it "telescoping" and "falling", yet to this day, the one viewpoint she uses suggests erronously "vaporization of steel".
I find it very suspicious that not a single prominent member of the 9/11 Truth Movement has ever done a chapter-by-chapter book review to highlight the "the good, the bad, and the ugly." They give sweeping dismissals using phrases like "looney", but offer scant few details. They can't afford to acknowledge the nuggets of truth contained in her textbook -- however few and far between some might claim them to be --, because those nuggets of truth are very damning.
Dr. Wood isn't as wrong as most 9/11 Truthers make her out to be, though. And she does an important job of getting people to think outside-the-box.
Peter writes (repeated):
[Dr. Wood] is a perfect anecdote for Dr. Steven Jones (thermite) theory which I find credible.
Harsh reality for any humble seekers of 9/11 truth is that there is not a single source of reliable 9/11 information and analysis. All who became famous for their public PR tour in the 9/11 Truth Movement have issues, and Dr. Steven Jones is no exception.
Whereas I have no issues ~believing~ that super-duper nano-thermite was found and involved in the WTC destruction, it strains credibility beyond the breaking point to attribute to it all that Dr. Jones [lets others pin to it.] He and Kevin Ryan make a convincing case that it may account for six or so spikes in gas releases from the smoldering pile, but they have no explanation for what maintained the under-rubble hot-spots. A glaring omission by Dr. Jones are the calculations of explosive materials required (A) for pulverization and (B) for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.
It doesn't matter whether referencing pure super-duper nano-thermite or it mixed with any combination of conventional chemical explosives (e.g., RDX). That B is very pesky and represents an unspent or overkill amount from its original purpose of A. These left-over amounts if put in a pile would be consumed almost instantly due to their fast burn-rates. In order to get them to burn for several weeks, they'd need to be present under-the-rubble like some sort of a fuse. For the sake of discussion, think of an imaginary garden hose packed with such materials but ignore its diameter for the moment. In order for super-duper nano-thermite with any combination of chemical explosives to account for just four weeks of hot-spot, the imaginary garden hose would need to be several HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS miles long!!! Not possible. Not believable. Not Occam Razor.
Ergo, something else maintain the hot-spots, and in October 2012 Dr. Jones admitted as much.
Which leads us to another troublesome area in Dr. Jones PR tour in the 9/11 Truth Movement: his no-nukes paper. He tries to fool the world with the (tiny) skew and spin in that paper, but it doesn't take a nuclear scientist to see its weaknesses (e.g., relying on the Tritium Report) and the purposeful logic error added as misdirection. In a nutshell, Dr. Jones tried to con us with:
Nuclear weapons of type X, Y, and Z have radiation signatures of A, B, and C. Radiation signature D was measured. Thus, the cause of the WTC destruction was not nuclear weapons of X, Y, or Z nor any other nuclear device.
Other than airplane exit signs and police gun sights and utter speculation into how their tritium would get into the drainage of the WTC (from the skewed Tritium Report), Dr. Jones does not speculate much into the tritium radiation signature, which is a signature of a fusion device. A glaring omission is that Dr. Jones does not speculate into neutron nuclear devices, which are fusion devices configured to allow neutrons to escape (rather than reflecting them back into the chain reaction to get a big BANG.) The escaping neutrons can be aimed, although the importance of this on 9/11 isn't to use as a weapon, because they were aimed upwards and out of the way. The importance of this is that a fusion device configured as a neutron bomb reduces its blast and heat wave down to a tactical level. Multiple such ERW devices could be used in tandem without fracticide. AND the radiation signature would be small and short-lived, as observed!!!
Where is Dr. Jones discussion of unique configuration of nuclear devices (e.g., neutron nuclear DEW) that could explain the sudden pulverization of the towers as well as under-rubble hot-spots (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material)? Where is Dr. Jones analysis of the dust for nuclear signatures? (Jeff Prager determined ample evidence for fission; fission-triggered-fusion as neutron devices is what we're talking here.)
In order for disinformation to be successful, it has to have a foundation of mostly truth. Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones both have foundations of truth... before they inserted their disinformation to mislead the world. Evidence of "nuclear anything" reduces the list of suspects-with-the-means significantly, makig it hard for the US government to keep hands clean. The message had to be contained.
Evidence of "nuclear anything" has about the same PR stigma as a “toxic waste dump”: nobody wants it in their backyard, their playground, their place of employment, or their commerce centers. Want to see a portion of NY city shrivel up & die as inhabitents and workers make their exits to greener, non-toxic pastures? Then let it slip out that “nuclear something” was involved. Even though the spectrum of "nuclear somethings" is very wide with respect to radiation signatures, their duration, and their impacts on human health, misconceptions will still run wild in the public sphere. The "Field of Dreams" message to Silverstein paraphrased: "If you re-build it, ain’t nobody gonna come."
For more information on this topic:
- 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/11/neutron-nuclear-dew.html
- 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/12/911-neutron-nuclear-dew-part-2_21.html
//
x104 Señor El Once : the proper mindset to be wary
To Peter's question, the science is in Dr. Wood's textbook. Particularly from her early chapters, don't waste your time trying to disprove it. Different story for later chapters, where the science numbers gets reduced as the introduction of various out-of-box concepts gets increased. The validity of those out-of-box concepts is a separate question from applicability to 9/11.
To Ms. Bev, I recommend that you do not make too much of Dr. Wood's federal Qui Tam case for science fraud. First, no one in the case had standing for making the case. It was destined to be thrown out. Second, her lawyers did a grave disservice for not stopping at proving that the WTC towers' destruction was not a gravity-driven collapsed and required excess energy input. By venturing into speculative areas for which they had little proof (to this day), they poisoned the well. Third, it appears they played into the "double jeopardy" ploy to keep further trials on this theme out of court.
Mr. Bev writes:
Sometimes I think that it would have been a profound moment if Dr. Wood could have stood over what we saw as ‘glowing fire’ and explained it forensically.
Permit me a small detour. Before the September Clues crew banned me, I tried to get them to debunk Dr. Wood legitimately. You see, their premise is essentially "garbage-in, garbage-out" and that Dr. Wood's analysis relied on tainted imagery, so itself is tainted by having been so duped by tainted images. I picked out six or so images from Dr. Wood (intended as a starting point for discussions) and challenged them to find the taint.
Three of the six images came up as suspect. (Of course, because September Clues were arguing 100% tainted imagery, only getting their rational thought to rise to finding the taint in 50% of this tiny subset was part of the upset.)
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/5139_0_s.jpg
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/jn08.jpg
http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/browse.jpg
I bring this up, because the "glowing fires" over which you want Dr. Wood to stand and explain are (IMHO) some of the exact same tainted images that should be questioned for validity; it is indeed an area of her publication that I consider "garbage-in, garbage-out."
Multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices explains a lot of evidence presented in Dr. Wood's book, such as the vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot but no damage to the flags or leaves of trees. I believe escaping line-of-sight electromagnetic pulses [EMP] from the ignition of the neutron nuclear devices explains this phenomenon. The damaged cars at the bridge are notable for their damage (plus point), but Dr. Wood misleads by suggesting they were damaged at the bridge as opposed to the fact that they (such as the police car with open trunk) were damaged elsewhere and towed to the bridge as a staging area (minus point). She discusses the blown up power relay station near the bridge (plus point) but speculation into errant directed energy from the DEW devices in the towers is also unsubstantiated and misleading (minus point). I think its significance is in showing coordination in various military actions; the downed power relay station together with what was taken out at the WTC hampered any automated fire-suppression efforts. Similarly, she discusses Hurricane Erin (plus point) but suggests this is the power source for a DEW device (minus point). I think the significance of the hurricane is that they proved they could control the weather and control the weathermen; the hurricane may have been a back-up plan to really help wipe out any pesky evidence, should events have gone not according to plan.
Dr. Wood is correct in getting us to consider the magnitude of the energy requirements for pulverization (plus point), but makes unsubstantiated hints about Tesla energy from space, about energy from Hurricane Erin, but ~not~ about energy from nuclear devices that would be more easily come by and understood (minus point).
If we desire a profound moment from Dr. Wood, I would like to see version 2 of her book (a) address the valid criticism [like from Dr. Jenkins regarding energy requirements for steel vaporization to the extent that Dr. Wood wants readers to believe and that her collected pictures prove didn't happen], (b) fix obvious errors [like the vehicles towed to the bridge staging area, like the spire telescoping down], (c)_ address concepts of the Anonymous Physicist, (d) address tainted images and/or reports on which she bases her analysis...
When reader approach Dr. Wood's textbook as if it contained disinformation, they will have the proper mindset to be wary of what might not be true, but this exercise also requires that acknowledgment be given to that which remains true and which remains valid for deeper contemplation. This holds for watching her videos as well.
//
x105 Señor El Once : further explain multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices
Dear Ms. Bev, you asked:
Could you further explain... Multiple neutron nuclear DEW devices…??
The mal-framing that many 9/11 tour leaders used to supposedly debunk 9/11 being nuclear was to say "large nukes". Even Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, and Dr. Ward do this to a degree. Obviously, big nukes weren't used, else we would have seen whole city blocks decimated in one go.
The problems with using multiple nuclear devices (mini-nukes) are (a) it is very difficult to achieve low blast/heat yields that use the energy efficiently and (b) assuming low-yields are possible, the first of multiple devices can knock out and fracticide the others, making them fizzle and not reach their full expected nuclear output yield.
I believe that the low-yield issue was solved by making the nucluear devices versions of the neutron bomb (or ERW, for enhanced radiation weapon). In this configuration, the highly energetic neutrons are ~not~ contained within the device to achieve larger and larger output yields. Instead, they are allowed to escape (using the energy very inefficiently). This reduces significantly the output yield in terms of blast and heat wave, as the bulk of the excessive energy is vented via the escaping neutrons.
More importantly for 9/11, the neutrons can be targeted or directed, making them fit into the DEW classification. Energy (in the form of the neutrons) is being directed in a useful fashion. The catch is that the neutrons aren't targeted at people or things (which is how X-rays lasers from Star Wars and neutron bombs are framed). Neutron bombs often talk about kills life forms but saves infrastructure, which isn't strictly true; the infrastructure it doesn't destroy is only hardened military ones.
The aiming of the neutrons upwards allows another 9/11 benefit by not killing neighboring neutron devices below them. In this manner, multiple neutron devices can be used in tandem to achieve the top-down decimation observed.
However, this wasn't 100% the case on 9/11. The duration that under-rubble hot-spots burned suggests strongly that their source was unspent but fizzling nuclear material. Clean-up actions depicted in Dr. Wood book, plus the tight blanket of security at the WTC, suggest nuclear contingencies.
You can look up "neutron bombs", but be mindful of the limited application space they frame them for, like battlefields or detonation in the atmosphere to kill life forms. Be mindful of the intention to use ~all~ of the energy efficiently. On 9/11, they purposely let the lion's share of the energy escape or be vented away (inefficient energy usage). But Hey, the extra energy came for free or at no cost from the nuclear reaction, so throwing most of it away is no biggie.
- 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/911-neutron-nuclear-dew/
- 9/11 Neutron Nuclear DEW (Part 2)
http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/911-neutron-nuclear-dew2/
I'd write more, but I'm leaving on Spring Break with the family. Just a heads-up if I seem to disappear for awhile or if my responses are tardy.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment