Monday, February 6, 2012

Chuck Boldwyn / Morgan Reynolds

DEBATE: Where did the Twin Towers go?

84 comments:

  1. Please. Buddy Hackett on acid discredits your show. Stop showcasing this moron.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A leading marionette of James H. Fetzer's puppet parade is Chucky Boldwyn who supplements his retirement income by making libelous statements against the research of Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. and John Hutchison. What credentials does Mr. Boldwyn have to be a professional disinformation figure? Is it because his resume includes erratic, unstable, and violent behavior that resulted in repeated and serious breaches of ethical requirements and professionalism as well as a low credit score? I could dismiss Chucky as "Poor White Trailer Trash" but that would be disrespectful and non productive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was discussing Judy's work with a friend yesterday and broke it into three parts:

      (1) her work on the destruction, which is simply brilliant;

      (2) her theory of the case, which is rather undeveloped; and,

      (3) her persona, which has gone "off the deep end", in my opinion.

      I ask about (2), because it occurred to me that there is a parallel with the theory of ID--that God created complex organisms.

      Unless we know how God did it--how He was able to create them--ID is untestable and therefore unscientific. I fell that way about DEWs.

      If you can tell me how they work--how we get from (2) to (1)--I would be grateful.

      Because it seems to me that we don't have that link and, without it, her theory is untestable and therefore unscientific.

      Delete
    2. Jim, we don't know what form of energy they might use; we do know it's likely to be some variant on electromagnetism, or something similar but not admitted in the public realm.

      Why em? Em seems to have properties which change states of matter -- under non-classical uses of em. That is, when em is used HARMONICALLY, i.e., taking into account the pulses from the gravity of bodies around the earth, em functions in some very strange ways. (Biefield-Brown effect involved this, among other things.)

      We also know that Tesla was likely murdered for an already developed invention of his and he used "earth energy" to power his car for years. This would have been an em-related field effect "free" energy.

      We also know that the PR director of HAARP mentioned "space beam weapons" that they were collaborating on, with the Air Force. He was proud of it. HAARP uses em, so something about those space beam weapons relates to what they're learning about the harmonic resonance AND the em general effects that HAARP can produce.

      So do we know exactly how the universe works? At least publicly, are we close? NO. Do we know exactly what these weapons would do? NO.

      Do we know they have something of a wave effect and can change the state of matter? Yes. Em can do that, not just by harmonic direct resonance (like a C-note sung and breaking a glass) but can be more general: plasma is a change of state for matter (a wave, a harmonic set of waves), but works more generally, not on only one type of matter.

      Dr Andreija Puharich commented on the em overcoming the normal "resistance" to electrical waves in a classical sense, when em is produced under certain conditions. It can flow through that which normally resists it, he said, without melting the stuff -- just by being a different wave, like it changes state to flow through, then becomes "regular" em again at the receiver.

      All of these things seem to indicate we could have weaponry which uses as-yet-publicly under-studied science discoveries (developed out of the public science's eye, and with theoretical implications which would be great for humanity's understanding, but which seem to come out only in the odd "weird science" fact, publicly).

      Hope that helps.

      Delete
    3. Also, Jim, the idea this is UNTESTABLE is ridiculous: it is TESTABLE but not for us directly! We have to go through what some public science (weird or suppressed or ignored, mostly) has shown, and what some testimony from people with links to private science have said (such as the PR director of HAARP when talking of the secret Air Force projects in general as "space beam weapons" they're working on together a bit).

      So -- there are background theoretical tests in the public sphere which lend support to the theory of harmonic resonance changing states of matter (not merely shattering it), and there are hints from the private and from the crossover to secretive "public" (HAARP) spheres.

      Just because we cannot have the technology or (most of us) the scientific know-how to replicate the experiments which show the way through revising theory in the public domain, does not mean those points could not be developed and tested -- by us or by someone in the private domain. And we seem to have evidence they did in the private domain, so that is also testable in the sense of evidential witness statements.

      Delete
    4. Day ago yesterday. (An Amish phrase for two days ago.) I received the nicest compliment while waiting in line at one of the financial institutions I do business with. A customer being serviced looked up and saw me waiting then exclaimed in his deep booming voice to everyone within earshot , "That guy over there is not only rich but he's a really nice guy too!". (Wealth is relative and if your happiness is based solely on accumulating it you will never be happy. There are other riches besides man-made ones.) The customer making the remark was someone I had met while working out in the weight room at a local gym 12 years ago. He's a retired pro-football player and was working as a supervisor there. Even though he strikes a very imposing figure, he's a compassionate and loving "Gentile Giant". He's now on my list of people who will receive a gift copy of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph. D. For bulk orders, send your request to book (at ) wheredidthetowersgo.com

      (By the way, after my transaction was completed, I was informed by the service representative that I qualified for a pre-approved 0% credit card issued by this financial institution with a $18,000 credit limit. At first I thought the representative said $80,000! I really don't need credit but I did get one simply to increase my credit score. There was noting to fill out. It only required my signature!)

      Delete
    5. stevie.t, not to impugn your intelligence, but "bullshit" is not an argument. It has no probative (evidential) force. It is an emotive term that expresses an attitude, nothing more. If this is the extent of your contributions, I will be deleting them in the future, as I have already done with one in which you called someone--probably Clare, as I recall--a "douche bag"! Give us all a break and show there is a brain in your head, OK?

      Delete
  3. Misguided individuals calling for a "new 9/11 investigation” are actually covering up the fact that there has been one and it's available for anyone to read. The 540 page textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, IS the investigation. Do they want The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval stamped on the cover to make it official? How can any of those responsible be brought to justice from a "new 9/11 investigation” when the Supreme Court denied Dr. Judy Wood's Qui Tam Suit? Is there a higher court that I'm not aware of? Those that express concern that without justice being served there is nothing to prevent other such assaults from taking place assume that 9/11 was the first time this technology was used. The destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, left similar forensic evidence of a DEW attack such as the vertical circular cut-outs and "toasted" vehicles. But thanks to Dr. Judy Wood's investigation she has exposed what evidence "magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions" leave behind when this technology is used on unsuspecting and innocent victims. The jig is up.

    When will we wake from our slumber? Simply because you do not see the bars does not mean they do not exist. Our freedoms are limited to discussions of this subject but we do not have the freedom to change it. Monkeys in a zoo have the freedom to complain about their living conditions, their food, or even their lack of privacy, but they do not have the freedom to change it. Vote all you want, nothing will change. Whether you take the right or left path this illusion of choice takes you to the same slaughterhouse.

    How can the families of the victims ever find peace? For those with eyes wide open the answer to this question is simple. Provide the families with Dr. Judy Wood's investigation as contained in her textbook. Why not start a book drive and request donations for the purpose of gifting copies of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? to those families? Under IRS rules this could be accomplished as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization for educational purposes.

    We must ask ourselves, "Do we want revenge or peace for the families? If everybody knows about the forensic evidence of a DEW attack, it takes the power away from those using it. For example, if everyone knew who did what on 9/11, the psychological power driving things would evaporate. (i.e. “They hate us for our freedoms, so give up your freedoms so they won’t hate us.”)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So if DEWs were used in OKC why were they removing bombs from the building?

      Delete
    2. I didn't SAY DEWs WERE USED IN OKC. It was at least massive bombs in OKC.

      I said the cookie-cutter holes in WTC 5&6 do NOT match what happened in OKC.

      Delete
  4. Goldstein, Goldstein, Goldstein, are you related to the criminal Zionist Silverstein?
    Your names rhyme so well!
    Goldstein, Silverstein: sounds like a Zionist Cabal spewing criminal & retarded propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boldwyn, you really debase yourself on this "Zionist" issue -- using any kind of religious fanatic term for people of the religion or not of the religion, without evidence that they are a fanatic of that type, is UNCALLED FOR and "RACIST" (in common parlance). It is also dangerous to call people anything related to Israeli fanatics and their sympathizer friends, if you don't clarify that you are actually doing research on their conspiracy actions; if you use the term for Israeili fanatics and their sympathizer friends as a disparaging remark for regular people (esp. Jewish people) you are being exactly what the apologist propagandists want! They use the term "anti-Semitic" loosely and inaccurately, but in common parlance, you are doing just what they mean by it: calling a Jew a "bad name" by making a "bad name" out of what the fanatics think of as a "good name": Zionist.

      Don't do it! It brings us all down by association in some people's minds.

      Delete
  5. I concur, no disrespect to those voicing their thoughts about 9-11, but you should consider someone with better presentation skills than CB to provide an apposing view/argument to DEW or any other debate format.

    Thank you JF for pushing the discourse on this important aspect of false flag operations.

    Growing public awareness of the current technological weapons covertly being used will push the psychopaths to discover new ways of harnessing the energy of the universe, which will facilitate the eventual elimination of the non-psychopaths(humans) that will allow this new technology to help sustain a "superior" class of human for the next millenium and beyond without the menace of sentient humans.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wood & Woodward are also Zionist names.
    Is there a massive Zionist collusion conspiracy going on here?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stevie t.
    What is your real name, full name. What are your scientific credentials to call me a moron?
    Are you another DEWs Judy Wood groupie who can not explain the first thing about what a DEW is, What one looks like How one works, specifically, how it caused all of the anamolous destructions & event on 911 at the WTC Complex.
    How did a DEW TOAST THE CARS & not the seat. How does a DEW TAKE A TOWER DOWN SYMMETRICALLY?
    How does a DEW make hundreds of explosion sounds.
    Has any potential DEW been proven to be scaled up.
    How have avoide being exposed by The Military Channel presenting them as most or all of the top "secret" weapons have been exposed for years now.
    Tell us everything or even " anything" you know about DEWs. I hope you know more about DEWs than Dr. Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds, as they, essentially, know nothing that can be explained, in reality.
    Looks like you may be the real moron, here...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chuck:

    Please continue working on this, as you do some great work. However, please develop some sense of maturity, or I feel I will be forced to stop listening to you. I have downloaded and listened to all 25+ hours you've done on Jim's show, and I must say, you are discrediting yourself to me personally, because this is a scientific research topic, to which you bring 20% science, and 80% personal attacks on your detractors. I honestly don't care how you feel about Judy, Morgan, Jim, or Jews...I want to know if you have something scientifically relevant to 9/11. It seems that you do, but if you spent less time criticizing others, we might get to hear it. Nobody is perfect, but I think you're an important peg in this puzzle...don't blow it.

    Morgan:

    I do enjoy listening to you present Judy's evidence, as you are far more mature and poised than she (and Chuck, for that matter). Judy has an arrogance about her, that does nothing to lend credence to her evidence. However, Judy's scientific brain can fire out an answer to almost anything, as she's always "computing", it seems. I must accuse both yourself and Chuck of not having a debate, but rather an incredibly disorganized jumble of opinions, fired back and forth in 20 minute intervals. I was excited about this "debate", but it turned out to be more useless than each of you having your own 2 hr segment to present, separately. That's not your fault, but I feel you would have been better able to address each point of Chucks if it was a live back and forth. You know...a debate.

    Jim:

    love yu man....but you have to do something about the audio quality. I consider a "debate" between Chuck Boldwyn and Morgan Reynolds to be the most important 9/11 discussion happening anywhere in the world....and I can barely hear what's been said, particularly Morgan's side. So much background noise and hiss, it's ear splitting. Please address this, as I cannot imagine it costing you anything additional to have half way decent audio recording.

    To you all:

    Everyone needs to knock off the pety bickering and editorial. Stick to the SCIENCE, stick to you what is provable and what is not, and you'll all be on the same page before long, I assure you. Having your mind made up before you have the complete answer is a highway to failure and ignorance, and you've all done too great of work to have that happen now. Gow up, all of you. Step back, and remember what's important and what you're doing this in the first place..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PM,

      For whatever reason, we had an incredibly hard time just getting on the air. The program was delayed for 15 minutes and we went from there. I was unsure how to do it better and more even-handedly than to give each of them two 25-minute segments apiece. I agree it was a mixed bag, but I think we have to join issues about this. Next time--assuming there is one--I will try to do it better.

      Delete
  9. I see proving my research findings as foremost importance just above proving my adversary to be as wrong as possible.
    I consider that DEWs devotees are pushing super-flawed DEWs Theory as the only possible explanation for the destruction of the WTC Complex.
    I prefer to debate the defenders of the USA Government's Theory, like Shyam Sunder or Popular Mechanics or their university Professors, like Thomas Eagar of MIT I am optionated on the Science of Explaining 911 based on my understanding the Principles of the Sciences involved here to spending my active career practicing & teaching the scientific principles that apply to 911

    I see no wrong in valid critism of a 911 Debate opponent.
    Showing an opponent to be wrong helps your Advocacy case.
    Sometimes Adeseries need to be humiliated, especially when they cannot even begin to prove their case based on that there no DEWs presently available for inspective viewing,
    I would like to learn about these DEWs but there is no real, realistic evidence nor documents nor publications available to learn from.
    I think that Dr. Judy is overly Imaginative & can prove nothing in terms of any DEWs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From Clare whose computer is misfiring:

      Dear Chuck,

      I do find you introduce more than poised credible attacks on your opponents' positions, or mention their personal flaws simply to show an important point where they may have annoyed you. Rather, you do sometimes -- sometimes -- get hot under the collar in ways which do not just let off some steam, but act as if your upset is your argument.

      Having said that, your argument itself has the following problems:

      1. It assumes you are accounting for all aspects of the events of the day in a satisfactory manner -- explaining away or explaining in appropriately. In fact, the clouds looked pyroclastic, but were only mildly warm, hence were not heat-related in the strong way that the term pyroclastic implies. Another point is that nuclear change effects may have causes other than nuclear blasts in the common sense: electromagnetism is known to change matter to plasma, which is not a blast. There is an open question, therefore, if some electromagnetic or other field effect that would demolecularize and have some nuclear effects, could be created in the universe -- e.g., right in New York :) -- that would not require what we usually call "high blast potential energy" to make it.

      2. Such changes in state which are implied in a DEW (unknown weapon, with capabilities like nuclear blasts but minus a blast!), might well have been created. The people who argue this argue a large circumstance, admittedly not perfectly known at present, but a circumstance which includes some "footprints" of history. In other words: we do have the PR director of HAARP proudly claiming the Air Force and they are working on "space beam weapons". We also have the claims of Tesla -- some of them attested -- which imply that he used some kind of force field from the earth itself, perhaps in harmonic resonance with an antenna, to drive his car for years. These are only two things which black projects may be / may have been working with.

      3. Your case for nukes is actually precluded by the fuller case of 9/11 (that the clouds were not hot in any reasonable sense of "hot" and "pyroclastic" being used in the same sentence), and by the fact that no nuke disintegrates things without melting and regular blast-centres.

      4. Dr. Andreja Puharich has done some mathematical assessments of Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower power "creation" and how it may have changed "nuclear" states in the earth, to transmit energy through the earth. The possibility that electromagnetism, under strong enough or special conditions, could actually act as if it were a greater "mechanical" force on objects than a blast could, is not impossible, if the PR director and Tesla and Puharich (and some others) are right.

      5. Thus, I know you feel that this DEW postulate is NOT REQUIRED by the evidence and is therefore (to your mind) an extraneous as well as unsupported technology solution to the problem we face in explaining the dissolution of the towers -- for that is what it was. Unfortunately, nukes small or large do not have the profile of creating pure dissociation of materials such as steel in mid-air, and there IS a "footprint in public history" for DEWs and for other energy experiments which might have led to DEWs in private projects.

      But of course, thanks for your efforts to bring the fullest argument for nukes forward.

      Delete
    2. What do you think? I am not here to "force" a change in your mind. I present you with the either-or options about nukes as SOLE agents of the dustification. Nukes have heat and melting effects; they blast, yes, but so do explosives.

      We have testimony (PR HAARP man proudly explaining, and Tesla's car) for related items; we have experiments on plasma and harmonic earth effects (Biefield-Brown experiments, and newer atomic decay results), and we have known effects of nukes and explosives vs. dustification froth in mid-air, at low heat (i.e., not pyroclastic cloud level heat).

      A person does not have to be a professional scientist to understand these lines of inquiry and the composite mutual exclusion and mutual reinforcement of these things.

      Do you think you have more doubts? DEWs are not a mere "anything goes" explanation. They are a general, if hazy, real possibility. But whatever did it, it had extra features in its activity profile, than the profile of nuclear with explosives.

      Delete
    3. Chuck,

      I believe you are right on the money with the mini-nuke hypothesis. A mini-nuke will produce temperatures that approach those seen on the sun and that will explain the fine dust and pyroclastic flow. The heat will dissipate rapidly but it is there.

      There is no evidence that DEWs can produce these same effects. DEWs are NOT required to explain the destruction of the WTC buildings. Mini-nukes, thermite and C-4 would explain all of the observed effects as you have stated Chuck.

      Delete
    4. Clare,

      I have "ZERO" credibility in the actual existence of any Dew that could be responsible for even one aspect of the demise of the Complex. Reasoning, nukes, explosives & some Thermate- like Incendiary can explain all & every single Anamoly concerning the Complex's demolishment

      Delete
  10. Everyone should go to "9/11 Vancouver Hearings", at http://www.911vancouverhearings.com and give me some feedback about how things are set up. It is tentative and we are contemplating adding an additional session following lunch on Sunday to review what we have done and discuss where to go from here. Comment here or jfetzer@d.umn.edu

    ReplyDelete
  11. You don't need a "9/11 Vancouver Hearing" unless your intent is to play ring around the Mulberry Bush with disinformation and distort the research of Dr. Judy Wood as compiled in her 540 page textbook. Sham on you and your sociopathic sidekick Chucky. Life will deliver your just deserts. Truth doesn't need a movement, only lies do.

    http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you a Scientist who scientifically explain DEWs to me, what one looks like, how one works, where does it get it's energy from, how is it directed & precisely controlled to look like hundreds of exploding bombs or devices?
      Why would the destructive effects of Full-Scale DEWs look & sound exactly like exploding bombs. Can you or anyone explain that to me & millions like me, in some convincing manner?
      Please try & get some assistance if you need it & please report your results back here.

      Delete
    2. Well, Chuck, in all respect to your perception ability, the blasts outward could well have been FROM explosives, but the air containing the dust was not hot (as in really hot), so the explosives were not so greatly hot for long; and beams are turning to fine dust in mid-air and they're not brightly melting either.

      Delete
    3. Clare,

      The blasts upward and outward COULD have been caused by explosion? No they WERE caused by explosions. Nuclear explosions. The nuclear blast dissipates heat quickly but that doesn't mean the blasts weren't REALLY hot. As in surface of the sun hot.

      Delete
    4. What you are seeing is vast #s of powerfully reacting Thermatic- Like Chemical Tubular-
      Like vapor Trails composed of iron microspheres, Aluminum Oxide Fumes & pulverized all else.
      The steel was melting at the edges of the Thermated irregularly shaped blocks of falling Tower parts & being turned immediately into BB like Iron spheres The BB spheres are sprayed as a trail as the ongoing Chemical Reaction is still most vigorouslly ongoing, all the time is falling. That Reaction continues to proceed even after it hits the ground, trucks, cars, etc
      Not many survived directly below the Towers immediate surroundings.
      That is what my Scientific eyes see & interpret...

      Delete
    5. The air containing the "cloud" was mildly warm in the blast. It was thus not pyroclastic -- and thus not caused by pyroclastic behaviour, unless there were explosions at the centre as well.

      The dustification was in MID AIR as well as in situ, leaving most of the dust so fine it couldn't even fall quickly and so as it fell it flowed slowly. This leaves a lot of people thinking that it somehow was more pyroclastic in behaviour -- than it was in cause.

      That's all. Be truly scientific; realize what nukes can and can't do. The dust's behaviour and temperature don't match the usual suspects. The only reason it moves at all (other than the initial blasting of pieces), is that though it's fine, it does have some weight. If not, you would see that most of the dust is created WITHOUT blasting, just in situ and THEN begins to flow in air.

      Delete
    6. And dear Don, you know that pyroclastic requires SEARINGLY hot (not surface-of-Sun hot). This dust was mostly formed while objects hurtled, or in situ and began to flow (like lava) in the air currents.

      The only blasts were for effect and to help. Something else was destroying in situ most of the marerial, or as it flew off, disintegrating it after it was blown off (thus yes, in these cases, the piece is moving, but that's not the cause of its dustification -- it's already away from the blast site).

      The dust's behaviour looks like a flow and there is blasting of large pieces but a) they generally don't reach ground and b) most of the dustiness STAYS IN PLACE except for general air currents. It's so fine and in situ destroyed that it does not blast out.

      Air currents are most of what the dust flow impression is. There are blasts, but the dust just sits in the general area and slowly flows off, or down, not out.

      Delete
  12. Little Jimmy Fetzer's short, rather rude sentences, and difficult questions remind me of the hookah-smoking toadstool-sitting caterpillar in Chapter 5 "Advice from a Caterpillar" of Lewis Carroll's book, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. (He sort of looks like one too!)

    Advice from a Caterpillar

    The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last the Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, sleepy voice.

    'Who are you?' said the Caterpillar.

    This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, 'I - I hardly know, sir, just at present - at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been changed several times since then.'

    'What do you mean by that?' said the Caterpillar sternly. 'Explain yourself!'

    'I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, sir' said Alice, 'because I'm not myself, you see.'

    'I don't see,' said the Caterpillar.

    'I'm afraid I can't put it more clearly,' Alice replied very politely, 'for I can't understand it myself to begin with; and being so many different sizes in a day is very confusing.'

    'It isn't,' said the Caterpillar.

    'Well, perhaps you haven't found it so yet,' said Alice; 'but when you have to turn into a chrysalis - you will some day, you know - and then after that into a butterfly, I should think you'll feel it a little queer, won't you?'

    'Not a bit,' said the Caterpillar.

    'Well, perhaps your feelings may be different,' said Alice; 'all I know is, it would feel very queer to me.'

    'You!' said the Caterpillar contemptuously. 'Who are you?'

    Which brought them back again to the beginning of the conversation. Alice felt a little irritated at the Caterpillar's making such very short remarks, and she drew herself up and said, very gravely, 'I think, you ought to tell me who you are, first.'

    'Why?' said the Caterpillar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I have allowed you to post, even if some of what you have to say appears to be unjustified and drivel. But if you want to keep it up, I can delete your posts, too. Try some civility, OK?

      Delete
  13. You. Are obviously a Poet & not a Scientist. Did I guess that right?

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, he's being an ad hominem attacker, and not even a balanced one at that! Jim's short sentences are often respectful of others' time and ideas, even when he agrees, but sometimes they're a humanly normal emotional reaction: in other words, he has reactions as well as attempting overarching reasonableness.

    :) But Chuck, the man above is, currently anyway, being abrasive. Why approach him when he's in that mood and not EVEN attempting to argue (even argue badly)?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I had problems with CB the first times I listened to him, but he makes more sense to me now. But please Chuck, try to avoid misrepresenting others or discussing their persona etc, it is so tiresome. An opponent is an opprtunity to test your theory, getting angry in debates is like a,.. I dont know, a swimmer getting angry at the water perhaps, It makes no sense. Without competition science goes nowhere. Thats how we got from horse and carriage to phones that are computers in 100 years, one man would have to live for maybe millions of years to achievebthat by himself. Some say gray aliens helped us develop technology, maybe thy can help us explain how the towers fell, lol. Get Judy on the show, I wanna know what she thinks has happened.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If anyone doubts that mini-nukes were used to destroy the WTC buildings then by all means go watch 9/11 Eyewitness. You are going to see a series of explosions before each tower "collapses in a pile of dust" as the 1010 WINS announcer says.

    IF DEWs were used to destroy the buildings then why are there so many explosions? Why are there mushroom clouds and pyroclastic flow where buildings once stood? Why are heavy pieces of WTC1 ejected upward and away from the building?

    When I see a mushroom cloud where a building once stood then I conclude that a nuclear bomb(s) has destroyed the building. Does a DEW produce a mushroom cloud? We know nuclear bombs produce mushroom clouds - we don't know that DEWs can.

    So what Chuck says makes a lot of sense folks. Watch 9/11 Eyewitness then go back and read Chuck's PowerPoint slides. That will explain where your towers went.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do not think I have gotten angry on Jim Fetzer's show, not what I consider angry. I gues it who is interpreting what is anger in that person' eyes.
    I do get a bit animated, mostly for its entertainment value & to provoke responses to my research, be they good responses or negative responses.

    I would prefer to debate with the USA Government's Misguided & Lieing Scientists.
    Nearly 100% of Scientists reject the DEWs Theory. That should tell everyone something...
    Dr. Judy has evidence that a crime was committed, but has no direct evidence of how the crime was committedn zero evidence for DEWs that can be shown to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Don, the towers came down with mildly warm air and steel turned to dust in mid-air, like a smoke plume per piece of steel.

    There may have been nukes involved in the sub-basements, and may have been also some small nukes (?) in the centre of the building, but something changed the state of the steel into dust with no heat to speak of; the pyroclastic-looking cloud was not a psyroclastic cloud (which requires major heat to be labelled as such). The steel didn't drip or melt in mid-air; it comes off as chunks or stands as a spire and becomes wobbly and blows away.

    This is not anything explosive or nuke-explosive.

    And we know from Dr. Puharich's comments that nuke effects may be obtained in special electromagnetic field effects; plasma is something like that, we all know.

    We know the PR director for HAARP proudly said they were working on developing scinece behind beam weapons for space which the Air Force's Labs were working on.

    We have not only this, but Tesla's car, well attested, which ran on "earth" energy; some kind of resonance was affecting it.

    Biefield & Brown did public source experiments showing field effects do not always end up doing "work" on an object in a classical e-m manner, and they eliminated certain variables.

    We have the possibility that DEWs exist which could do these things hinted at (and more). And nukes NEVER turn steel into dust in mid-air.

    They may have been used, but they are insufficient; they may not even have had to have been used for the nuclear change effects to take place, since e-m can convert matter's states (plasma), so there may be some way e-m is being used in DEWs for a strange effect on 9/11.

    Whatever it was, however, it was no heat to speak of when creating the dust; and the blasts required to push the material out several hundred metres could even have been conventional explosions not even nukes! It's the conversion -- almost in place, other than the blast effects -- to dust in air without heat to speak of, which is the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here is Don Fox's comment on how mini-nukes can cause molecular dissociation and then my reply:

    Don: "OK Folks I've done a bit of physics research to find an explanation for what happened to the WTC buildings. Go to the 9/11 University Department of Physics ( http://911u.org/Physics/WTCenergySurplus.html ). They explain that mini-nuke devices WILL generate enough heat to cause molecular dissociation (and they get after Professor Jones as well) (http://911u.org/Physics/ ).

    "In a small area a mini-nuke will produce temperatures similar to those seen on the sun. That heat will dissipate rapidly so that explains why the clouds weren't scorching people running down the street a half mile away. So we know that mini-nukes CAN produce the observed affects of the WTC destruction while there is NO evidence that DEWs can produce these same affects. DEWs MAY be able to do it but there is no publicly available research which supports it.

    "So I believe that Chuck Boldwyn is right on the money when he states that mini-nukes brought down the WTC."


    ...........


    Clare: "There was no MELTING in mid-air or anywhere: it was in situ destruction plus dustification in mid-air, and NO whoosh of heat. Yes, usually you would have localized heat, sure, but THIS was so HUGE a destruction and a large GUSH of air ... that it should have carried much heat if it was nuclear."

    ReplyDelete
  20. A "localized" heat effect like the Sun, "quickly" dissipating is fine, but this was a HUGE area and a RAPIDLY carried whoosh of air, with NO heat to speak of, just warmth. Hardly a dissipation from Sun-like temps! If Mini-nukes were used, it may have been in the centre of the building; but most of the air was dissipating the molecules in mid-air without heat.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The dust has been analyzed by Niels Haritt & others.
    The only steel related particles found in the dust were the BB-like Iron spheres and no steel powder nor steel dust, none, only iron spheres
    That is, no pulverized, dustified steel particles found in any dust sample, even the USGA Government tested dust samples
    How can DEWs get around this crippling evidence for DEWs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iron spheres would be left as remnants of any nuclear change, but nuclear devices do not explain mid-air, non-heat plume destructions.

      The idea it was STILL STEEL as dust is not claimed by the DEW hypothesis. That claims instead that the dustification would be like nuclear effects -- in being dust whcih came from steel but was no longer steel -- but that DEWs might well, as the PR HAARP testimony and Tesla's and Biefield-Brown's work suggest in tangential ways, have the ability to, additionally, change the state of the matter in mid-air and localized.

      There is no heat ball. There is dust, changed nuclear profiles in the area, and dust.

      If the heat is as much as the Sun's heat (at the centre), and the 9/11 University is right and there were multiple nuclear bombs all along the core (instead of maybe a combination of those with explosives, or explosives), then why did the centre column turn to dust in MID AIR without a HEAT blast?

      It starts falling and as it does, increasing amounts of it wobbles into dust and blows off.

      I concur that if there is molecular dissociation at the centre of these new nukes, they would do so at the centre. But they would also leave much heat from the collapsing building -- which is not necessary in the relatively static heat profile of their examples.

      We have massive buildings; surely some of the intense heat would have come with the gush of air.

      If nukes were used, it must have been in conjunction with DEWs and with explosives. The latter two mostly for effect, or to assist in the takedown so quickly, while the DEWs would work on transforming most of the material in mid-air.

      Remember buildings 6 & 5.

      What is the HOLE in each? It is a surgical-like, nearly non-blasting (non lateral) effect. Remember?

      Maybe mini-nukes were used in places on the towers, but maybe it was not necessary. Either way, selective holes and mid-air dustification do not fit nukes.

      Delete
  22. The dust samples destroys the DEWs Theory, buries it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No. But it might indicate some mini-nukes as well, if the heat profile of the air gush were different, and the steel spire didn't turn to dust in mid-air without a blast around it giving a heat plume, and if buildings 5 & 6 didn't have surgical-like holes in them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chuck, in addition, I would like you to explain what you mean by "melting": we see no brightness, thus no normal use of the term "melting" for the dusting state-change of objects in mid-air. And what do you mean by "BB"s in mid-air? Of course effects could continue as an object gets ejected, but we see no melting with the blasts, not at the point when they are out in the air.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
    The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
    Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
    So early in the morning.

    This is the way we ignore all the evidence,
    Ignore all the evidence, ignore all the evidence.
    This is the way we ignore all the evidence,
    So early every morning.

    This is the way we insult Dr. Wood,
    Insult Dr. Wood, insult Dr. Wood.
    This is the way we insult Dr. Wood,
    So early every morning.

    This is the way we manage group think,
    Manage group think, manage group think.
    This is the way we manage group think,
    So early every morning.

    Isn't this song getting a little old children?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Emmanuel, I support Dr Wood (and in fact, the nuke argument has also benefited from her research, even if they interpret the molecular dissociation differently ...

    The problem is that the blasts coincided with a major gush of the air in the vicinity, carrying therefore much of the supposed heat with it, yet there was nothing of near-Sun temperatures, or even boiling water temperatures --- and they keep ignoring that buildings 5 & 6 holes do not fit the lateral aspects of an explosive blast.

    It is fine to say there are NUCLEAR EFFECTS, and there were explosions at least to assist the destruction of the WTC 1 & 2, but it's quite another to suggest that the materials could have been very hot at all at the time, if the air carried basically no heat.

    The remnant heat signatures might be from nukes or from some long-term fuming effect from the nuclear effects, but without a nuclear weapon in any usual use of the term (whatever generation).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms. Kuehn,

      What are your qualifications as a forensic engineer and scientist? Do you also have degrees in electromagnetism and nuclear physics? I know that Dr. Fetzer is a real stickler about credentials and whether or not someone has the appropriate degrees in the field in which they are speaking.

      http://drjudywood.com/media/080228_Fetzer_QuizzesJohnH.mp3

      So I’d like you to establish your credentials in the areas in which you are speaking.

      You referred to, “the remnant heat signatures” in your post. Please describe what methods you used to measure “remnant heat signatures” and verify them. Is this consistent with the thermal analysis conducted by a well qualified forensic engineer who has conducted a comprehensive forensic investigation? The truth is known. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up? Should they face a firing squad or spend life in prison?

      Delete
    2. No, Jim is not a "stickler for credentials" of the alphabet soup kind. He does ask what someone's background is, and (if particularly defensive, or if just trying to get all the background on the table) he will ask schooling or profession.

      He does not subscribe to the "appeal to authority" fallacy very often (though I think he was starting to, when talking to Hutchison; even there, however, he admitted he knew that people could do experiments without being professionals, but his emotions did get in the way a bit, and the Wood crowd has made much of that, unfortunately).

      The remnant heat signatures I wrote of, were merely the satellite pictures of heat (which could be fake, or real), which the pro-nuke-only crowd often refer to.

      I am a rational person who can see the arguments of both sides; and am arguing that there are items the nuke-only side are ignoring which are patently absurd, or misinformed. We can read of the electromagnetic experiments and some history of public testimony about them, and understand.

      I am not a physicist by trade. I am a well-informed "jury member", a thinker and widely informed reader, who wants to correct what I might get wrong, but also has a few thoughts for the "experts" to face up to.

      Punishment options for the perps are not my immediate concern; we must inform the public well, and help them to face the quagmire of lies around them. Then the just desserts would come to some perps of some things ---- but even then, the real WIN would be keeping our nation states relatively whole, standing against oligarchic imperialist attitudes.

      Delete
    3. Ms. Kuehn,

      Horse manure dipped in chocolate and covered with butter-cream frosting is still horse manure. Jim Fetzer is operating a cult and his last name might as well be Jones. Put down your cyanide-laced Kool-Aid and empower yourself by reading Dr. Judy Wood's 540 page textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? Why base your life on group think and peer acceptance? Cult followers typically follow their cult leaders to the grave. Your irrational support of Jim Fetzer is very symptomatic of cult behavior. Save yourself before there is no turning back. The truth is knowable.

      Delete
  27. Don contacted me suggesting buildings 5 & 6 were like the Murrah, but that was cut away, blasted out and up, not in one spot as a circle, with no debris worth mentioning.

    Are the nukes supposedly to have been planted all over but just to leave special straight up-and-down holes in a few spots in buildings?

    Eek.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Your questions answers can mostly be found here:

    abbrv.co.uk/vdB

    Lots of science explained for 911

    A basic understanding of Physics, Chemistry, Engineering & Math would be helpful for yournunderstanding of some topics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Chuck. I think, instead, you are blinded by your assumptions about what's normal and what's knowable or not, and thus miss some of my points.

      One of the main things the pro-nuke-only (with other explosives, but not DEWs) position emphasizes, is the lateral blast effect which we saw, as if DEWs could not have been part of this picture and ALSO lateral explosives.

      That is the opposite of cookie-cutter holes, and why they would appear in multiple buildings. Think top-down rather than up and out.

      Another thing the pro-nuke-not-DEW position holds, is that DEWs have no existence or any qualities known. Neither of these is true. I have outlined only a touch of the evidence suggesting that the world of energy does not work the way you would think it does; it does the things you think of, but also can, under certain conditions, behave in ways which are really changes of state, using conditions (forces) which do not have to be blasts, and still have effects which change matter's perceived nature (change its state).

      There are plenty of hints and even direct evidence (such as Tesla's car!) that more is happening in the harmonic electromagnetic and perhaps other "wave" levels of the universe of energy --- and you should know that Tesla's own papers went partly missing and he was dead several days before found, putting his death roughly when he was due to meet Air Force and CIA types, to give them designs he said were finished.

      Whatever the case with Tesla, however, we have many experiments -- sometimes on very specific things -- which do not fit the "norm" of energy and matter theory; often, these things are small but definite anomalies which are brushed aside, but the theoretical implications are ... forgive the expression, given our topic ... dynamite.

      Oftentimes, the experimenters were not thinking of the theoretical implications, and merely were empirically questioning something to find out what it did, and wrote it up.

      We also have the PR director of HAARP proudly commenting on the issue of DEWs in space; I should emphasize to you, conspiracy aware person, that this is often how we learn of things from a testimony (unless a regular citizen witnesses something): someone in some project we consider awful actually is proud of the work they're doing and makes some comment.

      Think of the CIA guys or mafia people who brag.

      I don't know all of the physics of 9/11, but I do know that explosive dust does not behave like a pyroclastic cloud of finely sweeping matter, and that heat rushing quickly does not lose all its -- er, pun again -- steam. In the 9/11 nuke-only (non-DEW/non-DEW with nukes and explosives) crowd, the talk is often about how there is SOME molecular dissociation at the centre of the blast, and the heat is incredibly high there but roughly localized.

      In this case, there was a huge area of this "like the Sun" heat and a collapse-effect (of the air) driving the air from the WTC 1&2 to other areas.

      This means there was SOME massive heat which would have seared its way, if it had been there as hot as the Sun. In a regular blast outward, probably not. But in this, more contained environment (huge area of heat column and tall buildings to channel any airflow into a strong current), SOME heat would have gotten through the area, at LEAST at boiling water temperature!

      It didn't.

      So if there were mini nukes in the sub-basement, and some explosives up the towers, that would make sense. But doing the "lather dust" effect and building 5&6 holes? No.

      Delete
  29. If the collapse (and other) footage is faked, then any speculation (based on the footage) as to the causes of the real collapses is futile. And there are plenty of reasons to believe that this footage (and the victims) is/are faked.
    www.septemberclues.info
    www.cluesforum.info

    Fakery Fakery Everywhere.
    And We Lap It Up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear pshea:

      There are reasons we KNOW there were fake video materials and victims; however, that the photos were all fake is unsupportable, or all victims. (Aside: The main list of victims is fake, and there are plenty of dovetailing reasons to think so. But there were some victims, particularly surely in locations other than the WTC.)

      The photos, contrary to what Shack suggests at times, were based on some reality; what also plays in is that the photographers were all plants, manoeuvred onto the scene (not a safe place to be, but they'd stay silent once they knew what they'd been part of).

      Where Shack is right, however, is that there was a high degree of faking in DIFFERENT ways:

      - there were scenes which show crowds but were shot against a blue/greenscreen and composited later (heads suddenly chop off, arms go through other people's sides, and so on.

      - there are shots of the obviously planted plane engine which were staged somewhere, and some were at the scene of.

      - there are re-worked videos (timings are off, comments inserted, etc.)

      The whole thing stinks of rubbish, it's true.

      BUT the photos of the lathering were not faked. There were videos with shadow problems and bad resolution when they should have been clear (they must have been run through computer simulation or compositry), but we DO have some clear shots which are typical photography.

      We do, thus, know that the building left those kinds of dust shapes.

      The fakery aspect was to obscure how many and what flying objects were in the air, and exactly when and how everything turned to dust (with blasts).

      Don't get fooled into thinking that because the GIST overall was misleading, and was obscured by fakery, that we have no sense of what happened to the towers.

      Delete
  30. The textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. , makes a wonderful gift for federal, state, and local government employees as well as military personnel. (i.e. my neighbor is a NASA researcher and I have friends in the local police department and military.)

    To buy bulk volumes, send your request to book (at) wheredidthetowersgo.com

    Ethical Considerations for Federal Employees


    The following general principles apply to every employee. Where a situation is not covered by these standards, employees should apply the principles below in determining whether their conduct is proper.

    1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.

    2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty.

    3) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic government information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest.

    4) Employees shall not solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by an employee’s agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee's duties.

    5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their duties.

    6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind the government.

    7) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.

    8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.

    9) Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for other than authorized activities.

    10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official government duties and responsibilities.

    11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.

    12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially those – such as Federal, State, or local taxes – that are imposed by law.

    13) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap.

    14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.

    ReplyDelete
  31. (WTF, Emmanuel? Of course those are proper governance duties.)

    Don and Chuck:

    There is no nuclear melt-plume (no heat fireball plume to speak of) and the air rushing out wasn't even boiling temp.

    The smoke effects are constant for an hour yet not black (except in some clearly doctored video, briefly). There are explosions all through that hour. NOT nuke for those explosions, first of all.

    Big bottom explosion, yes, right at beginning. If they used a nuke at base, maybe, but otherwise, no heat except mild warmth from the rest of the explosions. You think the near-Sun temps would have stayed only localized with that amount of downward destruction pushing the air out and down? (No it wasn't collapsing, but the dustification itself blocks airflow below and the air underneath pushes out under the dust above, giving the impression it might be doing so from collapsing floors instead.)

    The near-Sun temps don't reach anything around -- paper wasn't burned. Explain that. Tires nearby didn't melt. Combustions (fuming) cars were later and up to a mile away with "slicing" tire melt-lines. One might be arson, but cars flipped, flopped and dishrag-like in some cases with much less melting, but some fire in the cars next to them, suggests instead that the wave effect was uneven.

    When the objects demolecularize near the blast site of a mini-nuke, one would assume they're in the epicentre of a high-heat zone as well. That kind of demolecularization means they disappear, yes, but in a heat sink area; there is much melted.

    THOSE COLUMNS WHICH REMAINED WERE NOT MELTED, BUT CURLED IN PERFECT FORM OTHERWISE; and the spire just dustifies in mid-air with no yellow-red effect or fireball around.

    NOT NUKES for that stuff. Yes, major explosions.

    If they used nukes too, for some of the bottommost explosions, then fine, but what about the bathtub?

    No. Explosions were not likely nukes. And if they were, they didn't carry their heat, even dissipated to boiling point of water, when compressed and flowing outward into the streets.

    All other destruction hardly blew outward: a few hundred metres and then dustification.

    And yes, (Don), THERE IS EVIDENCE for the science behind DEWs, and testimony they're being made (PR director for HAARP proudly commenting on Air Force's development of that for space).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clare,

      Please go watch 9/11 Eyewitness Hoboken Highlights 1 Hour TV Special. You will see 9 (yes count them 9) explosions before WTC2 collapses. They go into detail on the "collapse" of WTC1: 17 seconds before the building comes down there is a massive bedrock shaking explosion. At -13.4 seconds another explosion, -7.4 a large explosion, -3.5 a medium explosion. Then the building starts coming down and there is a massive series of explosions at goes for 13.5 seconds and 17 seconds after the building starts to come down the heavy debris stops falling.

      While WTC1 was coming down debris is observed shooting 15 floors above the original height of the tower. Where did the energy for that come from? A DEW coming from space? Not likely.

      Another chunk of debris is observed being ejected from the middle of WTC1 upward at a 45 degree angle and outward 603 feet into the Winter Garden. Again where did the energy for that come from? If not a nuke then you would have needed TONS of TNT in the building. Nobody would have been able to get to their office and report for work that morning because of all of the TNT in the way!

      Then after all of these explosions we see a mushroom cloud and pyroclastic flow that covers Lower Manhattan. Let's see: huge explosions, debris flying hundreds of yards followed by a mushroom cloud. What causes that? Well, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'd say it's a duck. Or in this case a nuclear bomb(s).

      Delete
    2. maybe because the paper was on the ground before the towers fell.

      watch and learn
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxHpOep2e8w&list=FLTiNEwq_hiAWPVD3iHbO4EQ&index=9&feature=plpp_video

      Delete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'd say it's NOT a wide enough set of explosions except maybe at the end, to count as nuclear power: they go flying but not into wild arcs, and they disintegrate as they go (which might be some leftover reaction taking place, but then why did the centre spire not disintegrate with the centre blasts all along?), and besides, there was NO HEAT along those streets, worth speaking of.

    Maybe they did use nukes, but not ONLY nukes and explosives or the lack of even boiling-temperature heat and the straight-down holes (cookie cutter indeed!) in buildings 5 & 6 and elsewhere would not make sense. What, they fired a few nukes in those places, too, but no wide destruction blast on those? And why a few nukes here and there?

    Indeed.

    If they were nukes, they don't behave like nukes ... in part. If they were DEWs or a combo, then maybe. We know electromagnetism and variants can do nuke-like things PLUS have no heat worth speaking of at the end, in the air.

    I know you guys think those were mighty explosions; the ones in the air were hardly massive compared to the ones in the sub-basement. They could well have been stacked with barrels of high-grade explosives (as opposed to thermite the cutter charge to "explode"). Almost no-one went into work that day, it seems. Most of the floors may have been untenanted, to boot.

    There was insurance and real estate fraud going on, even if the towers weren't partly un-floored (just trussed) on some floors. The tenancy records indicate as much as the fact there were irregular tenancies, lacks of tenancy in large sections, and likely lies on top of those lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The nukes used on 9/11 were mini-nukes and their effects were localized AND directional. Like Chuck has said many times they were shaped to send the blast UP. That's why not much heat hit the street. The blast force and heat were directed upwards that's why your spire melts in mid-air.

      With Buildings 5 & 6 it was probably just a matter of not all of the bombs going off. It's difficult to get nukes to explode synchronously. WTC1 & 2 were the main events; maybe they put the B Team on 5 & 6.

      Delete
    2. The B team? A hole or two (i.e., a bomb here or there)? And the holes don't even blast OUTWARD as well as upward? You can't just blast upward, Don, or Chuck. These holes go effectively STRAIGHT UP AND DOWN. They're not particularly wider at top, where the blast would begin to widen.

      The towers don't blast upward. They disintegrate IN PLACE. The central columns leave that dust in the centre; the rest of it is blown outward, probably from secondary explosives.

      If there were nukes involved, we'd see a white hot core or a spreading blast.

      Look again!

      Delete
    3. No Clare you need to look again. Debris is observed shooting 15 floors above WTC1. That would be an upward blast NOT in place. Go watch 9/11 Eyewitness. Again: Huge bedrock shaking explosions, debris flying upward 15 stories and outward 603 feet then a mushroom cloud and pyroclastic flow. These are the telltale signs of a nuclear explosion.

      No DEWs were used in NY on 9/11. The evidence for nukes is overwhelming. Witnesses reported huge explosions all over Manhattan on 9/11. Bombs cause explosions. Nuclear bombs brought down the WTC. Enough with the DEWs already...

      Delete
  34. And again, there was no pyroclastic cloud because there was NO HEAT TO SPEAK OF. Unless that, too, is a lie; but then ALL videos of the people in the area are a lie (and they can't be, though Shack tries to make that point, overdoing his other good work).

    They would be seared even by boiling water temperatures. They were not.

    I am sure there were explosions. The darn thing must have been a combo job. The cars, the paper, the holes in 5&6 do NOT fit nukes properly ... NO HEAT in some of the fire areas (weird selective fires) and SELECTIVE DESTRUCTION of holes and so on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9/11 Eyewitness says that the reason the papers were floating around is because of paper's high tinsel strength to weight ration. Paper is lite so it just blows around. I'm sure that the paper close to a blast just disintegrated and the stuff closer to the edge of the building flew away.

      Delete
  35. What? So you're saying that HEAT and molecular DISSOCIATION are occurring in steel flying off, and paper flying WITH it is untouched?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don and Chuck:

      Let me make this very clear:

      In your thesis:

      The blast throws the heat outward. The paper and steel from the "edges" of the building fly through cooler air, pushed by the warmer air behind.

      The steel is affected by the heat and molecular dissociation effects from the centre of the blast. The centre is at near-Sun temperatures and affects the steel at the edges and the centre (but not the base of the centre column at first -- that disintegrates later).

      The pieces of molecularly dissociating steel rip through the area where the paper is flying. But the heat which made them fly doesn't flow with them, to affect the paper.

      This means a relatively static position for the heat, in spite of the blast effects on the steel. And not even near near-Sun temperatures roll through the space the paper is in, leaving it untouched.

      DO YOU SEE THE RELATIVE SPEEDS OF THE OBJECTS VS A BLAST TEMPERATURE? DO YOU SEE THAT THE AIR WOULD HAVE OVERCOME THE SPEED OF THE PAPER AND CARRIED A DIMINISHED HEAT WHICH WOULD STILL BE OF NEARLY NEAR-SUN TEMPS?

      DO YOU SEE THAT THE DIMINISHMENT OF HEAT BY THE SQUARE OF THE DISTANCE, MEASURED FROM THE CENTRE OF THE BUILDINGS, ASSUMES A STATIC HEAT SOURCE WITH NO AIR CURRENT?

      DO YOU SEE THAT THE PAPER WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY THE HEAT AND THAT WOULD ROLL OVER THE PAPER'S FLIGHT PATH AND STILL BE SO HOT THAT IT WOULD BURN IT IMMEDIATELY, EVEN IF IT HAD DISSIPATED MANY DEGREES, SINCE IT STARTED SO HOT AND THE PROPORTION OF HEAT COULD BE WAY LESS BY THEN AND STILL BE IMMEDIATELY COMBUSTING THE PAPER?

      THE RELATIVE SPEEDS OF OBJECTS VS. THE AIR AND YOUR INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF STATIC HEAT AREAS (MISUSE OF THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW) MEAN THE BLASTS WERE EXPLOSIVES AND THE BASE BLAST COULD HAVE BEEN NUKES MAYBE, BUT DEWS HAD TO BE INVOLVED.

      I typed in caps to be noticed. Not to "yell". Please reply, Chuck and Don, in detail.

      Thank you.

      Delete
  36. Whoa, I'm way late to this...

    I found Morgan’s presentation much more convincing, with all due respect to Chuck. From my understanding, there was virtually no significant seismic activity in NYC on 9/11, which really hurts Chuck’s thesis. If mini nucs, conventional explosives and thermite were involved, surely there would be some sort of seismic activity due to the weight of the buildings and explosions. Something weird happened to those buildings… that's for sure.

    I wonder what you guys think of Phil Jayhan and Larry McWilliams of Let’s Roll 9/11? They suggest that the buildings may have been prepared for demolition long in advance of 9/11, with most of the contents being removed in addition to significant sections being dismantled. Also, they suggest that the WTC were never built to their alleged specifications in the first place. That may explain the lack of debris and some of the other anomalies we saw that day. Any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look up in the thread. I covered Jayhan's thesis (as it relates to the issue of Wood, anyway, not as to its truth value).

      Delete
    2. Do you have a link to the thread?

      Delete
  37. Was this story too controversial? Is that why the link points to "Canadian Pharmacy"?

    ReplyDelete
  38. There was a hack (probably because of general upset at the show, not just this link): all the links pointed to the hack. It's fixed now.

    ReplyDelete
  39. All this endless arguing over whether the 9/11 pictures show DEWs or Nukes at work, interesting and drama-filled as it undeniably is, completely avoids the larger question of the CREDIBILITY of those images!

    If many of the 9/11 images are seriously contaminated with digital fakery, as years worth of (competing) research by the CluesForum and Let'sRoll investigators have now conclusively demonstrated (and Clare knows this very well, even if Jim only suspects it and is understandably disturbed by the cognitive dissonance it generates) then the "DEW vs. Nuke debate" is likely just as ultimately futile as SHADOW BOXING IN THE DARK!

    ReplyDelete
  40. And here's a photo-fakery question for Dr. Judy's highly repetitive PR agent(or sockpuppet):

    Why do the personal pictures of her(or you) on her(or your) own website demonstrate such obvious PhotoSlopping?

    For instance, why does she(or you) CAST NO SHADOW???

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hey Andy, do you have any good links for this info? Specific articles or videos I mean? Thanks in advance!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are only two forums, on the entire World Wide Web, that really take on 9/11 image-fakery with heavy-duty seriousness (although at least the topic is not banned from discussion here on Dr. Fetzer's forum, since he seems to be genuinely open-minded).

      The two forums are populated by some very serious and skilled (even obsessive) researchers who, for the most part, appear to despise (or dismiss) their counterparts on the rival forum.

      Nevertheless, when studied together (and Clare will attest to this) you will see they have sketched out an overview of 9/11 that differs greatly from both that of the blatantly fictional, official (Zelikow/NIST etc.) narrative and that of the limited-hangout (9/11 Blogger/PrisonPlanet etc.) "truth movement".

      CluesForum.info and LetsRollForums.com collectively have built a very strong case that:

      1. Commercial airliners filled with hijackers and victims were NOT involved in any of the day's four major explosions.

      2. The "3,000" victim list is fraudulently populated with a very high percentage of non-existent identities and illustrated (at memorial sites) with a large number of Photoshop-faked obituary pictures.

      3. The Twin Towers were incomplete structures from the beginning, with many floors sealed off and never finished.

      4. By the time of their scheduled-and-necessary destruction, these doomed, asbestos-filled shells were even emptier than before, as most legitimate tenants had already left after the 1993 bombing, only to be replaced (in an elaborate insurance-fraud scheme) by non-existent divisions of several big-time financial-trading firms in on the scam.

      5. A large portion of the photo and video record of the Pentagon and WTC's explosions AND aftermath/cleanup has been grossly contaminated by digital alteration and outright concoction -- starting with the CGI-faked, pre-recorded crash-and-collapse NYC footage shown "live" on the ever-compliant TV networks.

      6. Some, if not all, of the "grieving/heroic 9/11 survivors" who make media appearances (and it always seems to be the same, small coterie)are actually paid actors playing scripted roles -- and that even includes some supposed "first responders," whose ranks appear to have been thinned, at least in part, of colleagues who never existed in the first place.

      Both forums are multiple years old by now, and the key postings that make the above-outlined case for massive 9/11 fraud are, unfortunately, surrounded by a great deal of distracting trivia, wild speculation, vicious bickering, fearsome paranoia and other extraneous (to 9/11 fakery) material that can be very off-putting to the newbie visitor.

      Both forums do have search functions, however, and with ample time, curiosity, patience and diligence, you should be able to find the gold, John.

      Delete
    2. Excellent Andy, thanks for that summary. I think there is a lot of truth to this angle. 9/11 was such a major PSYOP.

      I took a stab at this subject on my blog, which you may be interested in reading:

      http://mrfriendsblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/psyop-aspects-of-911.html

      Also, check out this book if you haven't already:

      http://029f43d.netsolhost.com/iwtyt.pdf

      Delete
  42. Agreed, Andy, that many images were reworked and/or faked, but some were not. They are the clear photos and some of the video layers show things inconvenient to the main perspective: the inside core column which dustified in mid-air.

    Shack is brilliant but has claimed all images were fake without always mentioning the fact that his work shows that they were almost all doctored in one way or another, but that not all aspects are untrue within the photos. As with the Zapruder film, some truth peeks through.

    Shack, for instance, doesn't believe in the weird dustiness in the air, because he finds it impossible. Well, it was impossible for any normal explosives as destroyers of buildings --- even mini-nukes are not "normal" explosives.

    Shack has pointed out green screen effects on crowd scenes, has pointed out re-editing of helicopters in different news footage of the day, has pointed out buildings which just don't look real and where shadow effects on those layers of buildings seem to look impossible as the dust flows.

    (And of course he and "hoi.polloi" have made a brilliant foray into the victim extra names and images, implying that most of the victims -- to them, likely all the victims -- were fake identities. They do go too far in suggesting it was all done with computer simulation software visually; some of the victim photos are clearly sloppy cut and paste in photoshop.)

    Anyway, the fact that some of the shadows from the dust -- in the most unrealistic-looking shots of the whole area around the towers as they were destroyed -- look impossible does NOT mean that the clearer photos and video of the destruction are fake ... or, to be exact, that the videos of the destruction are ENTIRELY fake. They may have some buildings around or in front of the towers added in a "layer" effect, so that some of the actions of the day are obscured. But they do show the dustification well.

    They show dustification and clearly.

    Shack is right that there is a FALSE RESULT in most images, from doctoring and even outright faking (of crowd scenes, for instance), but he is not right in saying all images contain no reality. (He didn't even start off saying that -- nor does he always say that much himself.)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Clare, you (as usual) make some very good points here, but your IMHO too-credulous, repeated use of Dr. Wood's favourite term "dustification" nevertheless disturbs me, since you seem to be a far more rational/credible/mature individual than the semi-fictional, potty-mouthed entity that calls itself "Judy". (cf her bizarre-and-nasty e-mails to the good Dr. Fetzer.)

    Remember, this dodgy ex-professor appears to accept ALL the 9/11 imagery (that buttresses her occult-energy argument, anyway) very trustingly -- while some of the photos of herself, on her own website, are obvious PhotoShop fakes.

    And who do you suppose has been paying her room and board (plus heavy web-hosting, world travel and self-publishing fees) in the years since her brief academic career was rudely terminated? Morgan Reynolds, perhaps? Or maybe a black-budget debit card? And then there's the Wood Mystery backstory of her lengthy catatonic fit and amnesia (according to some net-posted accounts). Is that the exotic scent of MKUltra in the air?

    Clare, there are just too many Wood-en puzzle pieces here that won't fit together -- at least without a good shot of "molecular dissociation". Maybe Joseph Farrell has the answer. If you also correspond with him (and by the impressive scope of your arcane knowledge and associations I wouldn't be at all surprised) then please ask him to give the rest of us truth-addicts a genuinely privileged assessment of the Wood thesis (with OR without the Hutchinson business in the mix).

    ReplyDelete
  44. Both Clare and Andy both have my respect and overall agreement. Just wanted to add my support to their overall views posted here.

    ReplyDelete