Directed Energy Weapons

{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.

Left Right

{The following is a snippet from a discussion on AlterNet with John regarding milli-nukes. This is John Wright (aka LeftWright) of 9/11 Blogger. That on-list discussion led to some off-list email exchanges. Those very cordial exchanges ended with the ball in John's court to see if some knowledgeable scientific co-workers would agree with my assessment. At the clip of about once I month, I pinged John to remind him respectfully that the ball was still in his court regarding getting the views of his scientific co-workers and convincing me/him that milli-nukes weren't used on 9/11. It should be pointed out that they won't let me into 9/11 Blogger because I champion both milli-nukes and elements of the "no-(commercial)-planes" theories.}

Let me start with your conclusion:

"I have shown that nothing you cite is exclusively explained by the use of nukes. Therefore, absent some other positive evidence, it is illogical and unreasonable to postulate that they were used on 9/11/01."

Not true. Whereas there is overlap between (a) nukes and (b) thermite/nanothermite & explosives/incendiaries and these mechanisms may have been used together for fail-safe redundancy (because they really really really wanted the WTC complex destroyed), the three main areas where your mechanisms cannot logically and reasonably explain what was observed are:

- the under-rubble fire duration

- the energy required for the totality of the destruction

- EMP

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.