Beyond High School Physics

Maxwell C. Bridges = Señor El Once

2011-01-11; 2011-12-31

The following are from an off-list email. It was 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.

Later, Mr. Chandler co-authors a paper that I took issue with using my Señor El Once alias in the Truth & Shadows blog where I frequent. Mr. Chandler may not have seen the first posting. When Mr. Chandler made some comments to another blog entry, I made sure to bring up the points again.

I do not know if or when Mr. Chandler connected my Señor El Once alias to the Maxwell C. Bridges pen name to the author in the blog comment exchanges. Thus, this makes the connection.

{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces. This is unfinished. }

Expand All / Hide All

Maxwell C. Bridges : Dancing Around The Energy

2011-01-03

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.

I use the prefix milli very loosely, not to convey the exact order of magnitude but to get people thinking much smaller than mega or kilo that they normally associate with nukes. Nukes of very low yield are hard to design and deploy. They inefficiently consume their nuclear material. Used in tandem with other milli-nukes, they have the potential of causing others to fail, so back-up and redundancy are requisite. Unspent but fizzling nuclear material may have been what burned under the rubble for months. The 9/11 milli-nukes were designed for a limited yield to be contained within the chex structure and with its energy focused in useful directions (like down in a narrow cone on that tough bugger of a central core). Keep in mind the construction efforts on vacant floors that left dust residue in the offices of adjacent floors; keep in mind the report from a nosy neighbor who spied into the space where construction activities occurred and saw no offices or other tangible expected sights; maybe they were constructing a containing/energy-directing type funnel.

Emergency vehicles on neighboring streets may have been affected by a blast & heat wave of milli-nukes lower down. An electrical magnetic pulse (EMP) may have slipped out through the window slits of milli-nukes higher up, which caused the damage to vehicles outside the radius of falling debris but within line-of-sight of an EMP.

If Dr. Judy Woods website is good for nothing else (and few DEW conclusions), it has plenty of pictures of damage of vehicles to prove EMP.

- http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted
- http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

"A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles."

In particular on the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.

By all means, give Dr. Judy Wood's website a through exploring to observe the many pictures she amasses. Ignore her conclusions and the titles of pages of where the pictures are found; look for the nuggets of truth that are the pictorial evidence.

Also view this AP Coast Guard Aerial of 9/11 showing the thoroughness of the destruction.



Certainly the toxic mix of substances and chemicals in the air contributed to the ailments of 9/11 first responders. But you can bet that the weasel-words of the doctors also included poor lifestyle choices as a contributing factor to their illnesses today. Much of their sickness also aligns with radiation poisoning.

In my discussions in various forums, one point mentioned against 9/11 being a nuclear event was the supposed lack of evidence of radiation. Those in the 9/11 Movement tend to rely on the reports from physicist Dr. Steven Jones. Dr. Jones dismisses nuclear mechanisms based on govt reports regarding radiation measurements. The argument for nuclear mechanisms is not limited to govt reports which have a track record of being less than genuine, less than scientific, less than complete (that Dr. Jones laments about himself).

In fact, the evidence as revealed with the vehicle damage on Dr. Judy Woods (limited hangout DEW) website and in lots of newly released FOIA videos and pictures (of which I'm sure you've seen more than I) clearly shows destruction requiring massive amounts of energy.

Occam Razor. 9/11 milli-nukes explains what we observed, including the disinfo ploys and how Dr. Woods website tries to sweep all evidence of nuclear bombs under the carpet of DEW for easy debunking and to get those uncomfortable truths off of the table.

Milli-nukes also explains the cheerleaders for the OGCT after-the-fact. If the US nuked itself (directly or by contract with Israel), national security is the ruse but the reality is job security. The fallout of this nuclear revelation would be America sending everyone in Washington packing (and a good many to jail or death row), tearing down many agencies and institutions, and maybe even splitting apart the union or nation as we know it.

Nano-thermite may be a sacred cow of disinformation that will need to be slaughtered soon, much to the initial chagrin of the 9/11 Truth Movement. However, most are dedicated to the truth. Most have already been accumulating and dancing around the evidence of milli-nukes like a wave in the ocean building up and ready to crest. We will be happy to surf the truth where ever it goes, even if -- and maybe because -- it has the power to wipe out the institutions and govt that are the source for our suffering (and that of the world's).

If I am a duped useful idiot on the milli-nuke front, I'm open for enlightenment and change. Please help me.

Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges

Hide Above


David Chandler : [911SpeakOut.org]

2011-01-03

I have no knowledge of mini-nukes. I don't know whether they exist, what their yield might be, what properties they might have, or what evidence they might be expected to leave behind. I therefore don't know how to evaluate photographs to recognize such evidence even if I saw it. I believe my level of ignorance on this subject is widespread, hence nobody should be surprised at the level of skepticism. Whether or not other things were used, nano-thermite was present in the dust and it implicates involvement of the military industrial complex. I need to stand by what I know. Speculation beyond the evidence and beyond one's competence can be discrediting, so I don't go there, and I have no inclination to go there. If you know more about this than I do, more power to you. Find the evidence for your hypothesis that is as solid and tangible as the evidence for nanothermite. The real issue is getting public consciousness raised to the point of consensus that 9/11 was a covert black op. I don't think theories about mininukes are a useful line of inquiry in that regard. I'm sure the guys at 911Blogger take the same view.
--David Chandler

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Wisdom in Measured Words

2011-01-04

Dear Mr. Chandler,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I understand and appreciate the wisdom of your measured words. Towards the end, you wrote:

"The real issue is getting public consciousness raised to the point of consensus that 9/11 was a covert black op. I don't think theories about mininukes are a useful line of inquiry in that regard."

To avoid the public thinking us crazy, I was fine with this type of "thus far and no further" reasoning for the first 8 years. By golly, alone the 2.25 seconds of measurable gravitational acceleration in WTC-7 that you have hammered home all these years (thank you, thank you, thank you) really should have done it.

Or as another example of what should have raised public consciousness about 9/11 being a black op, you wrote:

"Whether or not other things were used, nano-thermite was present in the dust and it implicates involvement of the military industrial complex."

So why hasn't it worked? To borrow a term from politics: Framing.

The govt had the luxury of knowing what they were going to do so that they could build in advance a believable frame for most of the scattered pieces of the picture that would later be revealed. The frame includes and excludes pieces as required for their objectives, but the story as told by the framed picture steers the public to the pre-defined conclusions.

Examples of this:

- The govt experts on TV on 9/11 dismissing controlled demolition in favor of jet impacts, jet fuel, and office furniture fires and blaming Osama bin Laden.
- Dr. Byzant's pancake theory was made public within 2 or 3 days of 9/11 and was the govt's gospel for many years, but such a research paper isn't written in such a short period of time.
- Dr. Sunder from NIST dismissing controlled demolition due to decibel levels expected from some typical (but loud) explosive and knowing that the actual explosive mechanism detonated within a structure would be (and was) less.

The problem with the 9/11 Truth Movement is that they did not have the luxury of building a complete and accurate frame for their story. They chipped away at revealing pieces of the picture, that sometimes fit into the govt's frame (with lots of slight of hand) and sometimes didn't.

When the pieces didn't fit the govt's frame, the 9/11TM stopped there. "See? This disproves the OGCT!" The 9/11TM tried to avoid building any type speculative framing for the scattered data points, because as you wrote:

"Speculation beyond the evidence and beyond one's competence can be discrediting, so I don't go there, and I have no inclination to go there."

So the pieces would hang there like unconnected dots for the public to do something with. Without a frame, the public has no reference for action or re-action. "Oh that's nice. Lots of unconnected data points that may or may not be important and that distract me from American Idol."

Certainly, a problem with frames is that each time a nugget of truth gets revealed, the speculative frame gets re-drawn not at all neatly or in a rectangular fashion and begins to resemble gerrymandered political districts. Worse, agents were at work to have purposely wrong material included so as to discredit the frame. Worst of all, the govt simply ignores what's not in its frame and has compliant corporate media and numerous cheerleaders repeating its frame to push frames of ugly American leaders, black ops, and psyops out of view.

You wrote:

"I don't know whether (milli-nukes) exist, what their yield might be, what properties they might have, or what evidence they might be expected to leave behind."

Some simple google searches can be very enlightening. Davey Crocket from the early 1960's is a forerunner to milli-nukes. Beyond that, I don't know what the US has exactly, but correlating the runaway MIC budget to 40 years of development suggests lots of things in the US arsenals we don't know about.

Here's a crash course on nukes. Small nukes are technically much harder to design and (successfully) deploy than large nukes. They use their nuclear fuel inefficiently, have a higher probability of fizzling, and are more susceptible to fracticide from neighboring exploding nukes when used in tandem. You should expect unspent and fizzling nuclear material burning foundry-level hot.

Nuclear weapons have four inter-dependent effects that can be tweaked in the design: blast wave, heat wave, electrical magnetic pulse (EMP), and radiation. If 9/11 employed milli-nukes on the order of 2-6 per tower:

- The blast & heat wave were probably intended to be limited to a spherical radius less than the half the tower's width.

- The EMP is affected by where it is deployed, such as above-ground open-air (most damaging) versus below-ground (least damaging). The EMP was probably a don't-care in the design, because the steel outer structure, building content, and other buildings would contain most of it, except for the window-slits. EMP travels line-of-sight from the detonation and induces high currents in metal. This is why it is so debilitating to electronics; circuit board traces and leads to integrated circuits burn up like a fuse. When it hits sheet metal like in vehicles, high currents produce high temperatures that can ignite paint and touching components, like door handles and rubber seals.

- The type & minimization of residual radiation would have been of great concern in the design. When considering "evidence" of radiation, too much emphasis on particular types of radiation, levels of radiation, or govt reports on measured radiation are clever means to lead the science-challenged public off course.

You wrote:

"Find the evidence for your hypothesis that is as solid and tangible as the evidence for nanothermite."

I agree that the evidence for nano-thermite is solid and tangible, but it is being purposely mis-framed. Dr. Jones is careful in his wording in his reports. He says that thermitic compounds can produce molten metal without air because it gets oxygen from the chemical reaction with steel. He then leaves it to the yeomen of the 9/11 movement to extrapolate from there that nano-thermite burned foundry-level hot under the rubble without outside air for months. The duration of those fires is why a source other than nano-thermite has to be sought, because the physics of the burn-rate of thermitic compounds suggests massive and unreasonable quantities.

I believe that I have provided you with evidence of milli-nukes. It starts with viewing all of the evidence for controlled demolition while thinking "could a small number of milli-nukes account for this?" But then it expands the frame to include evidence that the govt doesn't have the moxie to address and that nano-thermite can't address adequately. Namely:

- Foundry-hot fires burning under the rubble for months at high temperatures as measure by satellites (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear fuel).
- Anomalous damage to vehicles well outside of the radius of falling debris (e.g., EMP).
- Anomalous damage to vehicles closer to the towers (e.g., blast & heat wave).
- Extreme pulverization of content.
- Content ejected from towers at high velocities.
- The nature of the debris piles.

Shading from and orientation to the EMP source can help explain anomalous burn patterns in the 1,400 damaged vehicles. Dr. Judy Woods website amasses many examples of EMP, although posted on pages with titles like "Space-based Weapons" or "Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)". [I believe that the titles of her pages could be changed to "Evidence of Nuclear Devices' EMP" and be valid. Maybe those were the original titles until institutional and administration pressure forced the changes thereby allowing the discredit of DEW to take out of play in a guilt-by-association the evidence of nuclear destruction and EMP side-effects.]

Aside from steering us in the direction of nano-thermite, Dr. Jones with his nuclear physics pedigree more so than any one else in the 9/11TM steers us away from nuclear devices. Why? His reports say: Lack of evidence of radiation. Upon closer inspection, though, the basis for the "lack of evidence of radiation" comes from measurements and conclusions from other govt reports, which on other fronts has a track record of being less than forthright.

I understand that redefining the number for trace or background levels of radiation is one trick those reports employ. Another game to lead the science-challenged public off course is too much emphasis on particular types of radiation or levels of radiation in order to build up a strawman against a type of nuclear device that they then use to knock down all types of nuclear devices. Remember, radiation is one of the outputs that can be tweaked in the design. Let us also not forget that the true evidence was carted away in great haste and under tight security and recycled without fire official or independent analysis, and that ailments of 9/11 First Responders align with those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors.

The evidence of 9/11 being a nuclear event does not live or die with govt reports on the supposed levels of radiation.

I repeat what you wrote before:

"Speculation beyond the evidence ... can be discrediting."

My point in writing wasn't "speculation beyond the evidence." My point was to get speculation up to the evidence. [like the craters in WTC-6 and the cylindrical/spherical bore holes in WTC-5.]

In this 10th year, I am no longer satisfied with holding that "thus far and no further" line, because that it what the govt has been successfully doing. Nano-thermite is one such fall back line for the govt that they are not happy defending against, but better this than the public getting a whiff of nukes.

I am no longer satisfied with avoiding the unpleasant frames. Other revelations about govt duplicity hasn't moved the public into action. The 9/11TM needs some shock-and-awe. If the evidence goes nuclear as I suggest, then we (and the Truth) need to go nuclear too, regardless of the fallout or the depth of the crater to our govt institutions or union. We are entitled to establish govt anew as our needs require, and this revelation is it.

Otherwise our holding back plays the govt's game, protects them, and permits them to continue their atrocities around the world.

P.S. Here is a video link that may not have been passed to you through your website form. It is of the aerial footage from the Coast Guard just a couple days after 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/v/hU8L3YuIDus?fs=1&hl=en_US


Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/

Hide Above


David Chandler : No Time or Inclindation

2011-01-05

Thank you for your concern, but I really don't have the time or inclination to deal with this right now. Good luck fleshing out your evidence.

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Fountain Streamers

2011-01-28

Dear Mr. Chandler,

I received your DVD and am happy to have it in my collection.

In the looping destruction of WTC-1 (the North Tower), you asked the question (probably more rhetoric than literal): what do we see?

In answering this, allow me to remind you of the age-old physics cannon ball experiment, where successive cannon balls where shot at different angles of elevation off of the horizontal to determine the total horizontal distance traveled. Although the initial vector and velocity of the ball was known at the mouth of the cannon, the force of gravity would act on the ball and arc its path until eventually it hit the earth. As you'll recall, angles greater than 45 degrees would result in the same horizontal distance as angles less than 45 degrees. The tester drew overlaid dotted arched lines to represent the flight path of each cannon ball. Keep these arched flight paths in mind.

After the destruction of WTC-1 has started and is well under way, a distinct moment in time comes when a significant piece of debris with trailing smoke seems to arc over the canapoy of destruction creating a new canapy. In your looping video, this particular anomaly happens in the left portion of the screen.

The obvious point is that in order for this debris to seemingly arch over the other debris like a cannon ball, it required (a) a significant launching force and (b) a launch angle that was greater than 0 degrees off of the horizontal. In a gravitational collapse with the kinetic forces down (-90 degrees off of the horizontal), physics suggests that debris could be launched with some force at angles between, say, -90 degrees and 0 (horizontal). But while continuing the collapse at gravitational acceleration, it would be impossible for those forces to launch something at a positive angle, let alone something that appears to be between a positive 20 and 50 degrees off of the horizontal to get it to arch over the debris like a Las Vegas water fountain.

This is clearly an indication where a secondary explosion happened within the collapse whose spherical blast wave pulverized content up and down and launched this debris at a positive angle between 20 and 50 degrees so that it would act like a cannon ball and arch over the canopy of debris.

Yes, not only does the debris arch up like the cannon ball experiment, but the trailing smoke & dust are left hanging in the air just like the dotted-line diagrams made by the cannon tester in the physics books. Something worthy of being pointed out.

Have a great weekend,

Hide Above


David Chandler : Curved streamers can be misleading

2011-01-30

I have not seen any projectile launched upward. Curved streamers can be misleading because the tail end of the streamer can be drawn downward with the draft of the falling material. Looking upward there can be perspective effects. However actually tracing the path of a solid projectile as seen with a horizontally mounted stationary camera shows only projectiles launched horizontally, so far as I have seen. If you know of an exception, please show me the clip.

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : You are probably right

2011-01-30

Dear Mr. Chandler,

Thank you for that insight. You are probably right, and I mis-saw projectiles arching initially at some positive angle above the horizontal.

Excellent work, your DVD. One day, may the physics therein taught be presented to high schools across our nation as an inter-disciplinary class involving recent American History, global politics, physics, journalism, and math. Knowledge such as this should be a required high school class, so that they'll learn the nature of govt manipulation and deceitfulness and how it can affect them directly, like in a military draft.

Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges

P.S. I agree with all of your findings, including the explosive remnants in the debris and the meaning of some of the trailing clouds of smoke. Some thermitic compound, as discovered in the dust, may have been affixed to the structure and been the source of why debris pieces were emitting trails of smoke. But in an overly thorough and redundantly planned demolition designed for a Hollywood production values, thermitic compounds did not have to work alone. (Yes, I am still of the opinion that 9/11 was several mini-nuclear events, like to take out the core, while thermitic compounds took out the bolts in the outer mesh steel structure. A nuked piece of material might also catch instantly on fire and emit trails of smoke, although it will not change directions 90 degrees, as you proved with some of the debris. Redundancy, though, particularly given the unreliability of milli-nukes.)

It is interesting that you bring up the point of "streamers can be drawn downward with the draft of the falling material." This is partly how the mini-nuclear mushroom cloud was concealed. It was drawn downward with not just the draft of falling material, but the falling material itself. Smoke from existing fires helped mask it at the top end.

Milli-nukes is but one explanation for how those floors could suddenly weaken to 1/3 of their previous upward force. And just as inner-core elements can pass next to each other (like the fingers of each of your hands in the video), a probability exists that milli-nukes simply took them out.

I know you are busy and not interested in pursuing nuclear tangents. No need to respond or go there. Your work remains a master-piece, and a great legacy for you and gift to the world. And I greatly appreciate it. All the best.

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis

2011-05-19

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.

Case in point, nano-thermite does reach extremely high temperatures quickly, but:

(A) Nano-thermite's very fast burn rate makes it an unlikely candidate to account for the DURATION of the underground fires. Do the math; you'd need massive overkill amounts.

(B) Nano-thermite is an incidiary useful for cutting. The dustification of the towers is a massive energy sink, whereby nano-thermite not only would be less than ideal to generate this explosive energy in a controlled fashion, but also would necessitate again massive overkill amounts.

(C) Massive overkill amounts introduce risks of detection in both the logistics of implementation and what remains in the aftermath.

(D) Nano-thermite does not adequately explain all of the damage to vehicles, like those where fires originated ~inside~ the vehicle, unique burn patterns, and destruction of things like plastic door handles and gas caps. [This is major area where your article comes damn close to exposing itself as disinformation.]

A nugget of truth mined from the Russian disinformation agent, Dimitri K., is that in order to obtain building permits for the towers, they had to have an approved demolition plan; nuclear devices were supposedly in those demolition plans from the 60's. (The Davey Crocket nuke was tested in 1960.)

Dr. Wood unwittingly debunks Dimitri's thesis of "deep underground nukes", because she presents undisputed evidence of the undamaged bathtub and only 3 or 4 of 7 subway lines being obstructed, as well as seismic evidence. Moreover, she calculates why dustification was required. Had the perpetrators not gone to overkill measures, massive chunks of building (like the leaning upper stories of WTC-2 that should have tumbled over or what traditional controlled demolition creates) falling from great heights would have had massive amounts of kinetic energy and been sufficient to damage the bathtub. Any significant crack of the bathtub walls would have flooded the WTC basements, the subway tubes including the ones going under the Hudson, and the basements of many other NYC buildings.

Thus, we must acknowledge that dustification of structure and content weren't just flukes of an overly efficient overkill demolition (as would be expected of a tight paramilitary operation); dustification was a demolition goal to limit the scope of destruction to the WTC and to leave the intact bathtub & subways for rebuilding. As such, we must work backwards, recognize this dustification is a massive energy sink, and theorize what could be its energy source.

Conventional explosives and nano-thermite as primary mechanisms have the same issues: massive overkill amounts are required and would present more risk of exposing the operation during their installation and aftermath.

This is why I've been (until recently) championing milli-nukes. Multiple fusion-triggered fission devices per tower can explain the dustification, the foundry-level fires burning for months under the rubble (e.g., unspent but fizzling nuclear material), measured radiation levels, damage to vehicles, and first responder ailments.

It turns out that DEW can also account for the energy source, but this has always been spun inside and outside the 9/11 Truth Movement as "space-based DEW." Because the dustification of the towers began within the structure at the supposed plane impact level and not tippy-top down, space-based DEW get ruled out. (Space-based DEW is something to keep in consideration for the crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of just the main edifice of WTC-4 that was cut at a neat line from its relatively undamaged North wing. The woefully unreported HUGE hurricane off of the coast of NY could hide what was happening in space.)

I'm not finished with Dr. Wood's textbook yet, but she is getting me to waffle on this milli-nuke premise. I'll be damned if she isn't making a convincing case for cold fusion, which is making a come-back in the scientific community. [Is it a coincidence that the nuclear scientist who debunked cold fusion on behalf of the US govt in 1989, that the nuclear scientist who ruled out the use of any type of nuke on 9/11, and that the nuclear scientist who discovered nano-thermite in the dust and allowed the minions of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate nano-thermite into explaining evidence (e.g., the ~duration~ of underground fires, the dustification of content) is none other than Dr. Steven Jones?]

DEW from cold-fusion needs to be seriously considered.

I have a growing library of 9/11 literature and DVDs. Next to Chandler's DVDs and Dr. Griffin's researched books, Dr. Wood's textbook is becoming a highly valued and treasured addition to my library that I feel all serious researchers should have. Alone her collection of color pictures that are correlated to map positions justifies its purchase and study, because it brings into perspective the scope of the destruction (and the limits of the destruction e.g., the bathtub). I thought the 2nd half that goes into DEW would be disinformation that we'd want to show our grandchildren how our generation was played. I'm discovering that this 2nd half is not... at least not yet as far as I've read.

Your conclusion was: "We do not support the DEW hypothesis because it is not supported by the available evidence. In contrast, the explosives/incendiaries hypothesis for the WTC destruction is well supported by the evidence."

Sorry, my response is "Bullshit." Exactly the opposite. Go back and try again.

Hide Above


David Chandler : [911SpeakOut.org] Judy Wood Distraction

2011-05-19

Jon Cole and I concur that we consider Judy Wood to be a distraction, a disruption, and one who is promoting theories that are unsupported by evidence and transparently false. We have no interest in discussing her work further.

See http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf
and http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=688 and the three part interview starting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJZrj0leylc

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Dancing Around the Evidence

2011-05-19

Dear Mr. Chandler,

I'd like to hear that from Jon Cole himself.

You might consider Dr. Wood a distraction, but is that because of the evidence she presents or her conclusions? The fact is, Mr. Cole and A&E for 9/11 truth do not address her evidence adequately with appropriate alternative theories.

The article they just posted tries to make nano-thermite responsible for the burned out cars. They imply that the dust clouds carried energetic nano-thermite to the vehicles that then burned them out. Certainly, this might be valid in a case or two, but the car damage is so anomalous -- sometimes with fires that seemed to originate on the interior in cases and not affecting other parts of the vehicles or neighboring vehicles.

The article seems to imply that nano-thermite is responsible for the massive energy sink that dustification was. It cherry-picks that spire with an alternative (and weak) explanation, but doesn't address how nano-thermite could possibly pulverize concrete or even how nano-thermite got the spire. Come on! Nano-thermite reacts with steel! How is it supposed to have acted on the concrete and other contend with such destructive force?

You guys are dancing around the evidence. Don't like Dr. Wood's conclusions? Fine. But address the evidence. They have not.

I purchased Dr. Wood's book out of curiosity. I was mining it for evidence of milli-nukes. I wasn't expecting to find myself agreeing with so much of what she covers, least of all DEW or cold fusion.

That "meteorite" and "Ben & Jerry's filing cabinet" are pretty revealing. These are instances where materials of very different melting and boiling points have been fused together and still have defining characteristics of their original form. Melted pennies and nickels fused with a wrinkled filing cabinet with paper. Nano-thermite and its resulting heat acting on nearby structure doesn't explain it. Even my beloved milli-nukes doesn't explain it, particularly after Dr. Wood points out that traditional sources (heat from milli-nukes or nano-thermite) would burn the paper and boil off certain metals (like one coin) before the other (coin) was hot enough to melt.

Dr. Wood a distraction? If you believe the hype and uncritically let yourself (and the truth movement) be steered to AVOID addressing all of the evidence, yeah, sure. A distraction.

Are her conclusions right? I don't know. But by golly, she at least points out evidence that needs to be addressed... with an open-mind.

Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges

Hide Above


David Chandler : Don't even waste time responding

2011-05-19

Jon's response was, "Don't even waste time responding." I did anyway.
I gave you links that adequately contain our shared response. You obviously have not even bothered to look at them, but if your are truly interested in why we have the attitude we do, read them and watch the interview.
--David Chandler

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : An Honor to Give You Dr. Wood's textbook

2011-05-19

Dear Mr. Chandler,

I don't mean to be debating you, because my original message was addressed to Mr. Cole in an attempt to engage him in a rational discussion regarding energy requirements and destructive mechanisms of 9/11. I already know your expressed limits of interest and expertise.

Contrary to your assertion, I read the links... Yep, they are indeed "distracting 9/11 politics," I agree fully.

I had seen the interviews before. As a teacher, you know that a person's articulation isn't always in synch with what is going on inside their head, particularly when the pressure of an interviewer's camera and spur of the moment cameras. Dr. Wood doesn't come across well (and I probably wouldn't either.) Moreover, at the time of the videos, she wasn't venturing forth specifics on what the mechanism brought the towers down that Dr. Jenkins was trying to corner her into. All along, the salient point has been that the destruction was a massive energy sink. Gravity didn't cut it.

Dr. Jenkin's PDF discuss views held by Dr. Wood's from years ago. "Space-based DEW" is a chink in the armor of Dr. Wood debunkers, particularly in light of the new book, because it obviously tries to wrap everything under one easy to debunk "spacey" umbrella.

The "links that adequately contain our shared response" are old. Certainly they are valid in forming your perceptions. But the textbook is new.

Does Jon's response of "don't even waste time ..." apply to reading Dr. Wood's book? If your opinion of Dr. Wood, and more importantly her textbook, is based on old material that has been floating around the internet for years, you are missing something. On purpose?

Do either one of you have it? Have you cracked it open?

Let your answers to those two questions prove the sincerity of your analysis.

I respect your work mightily. I bought your videos (and even purchased extra for distribution.) In our previous email exchanges, you made a point of saying that nukes (milli or otherwise) is outside the scope of your expertise; you refuse to speculate. (Nukes are why I'm reading her textbook, and she has supplied me with many nuggets of truth in that endeavor.)

Given Dr. Wood's internet reputation particularly among the mainstream 9/11 crowd, I can't imagine that you'll plunk down $50 to acquire something that you are predisposed to judge as a distraction and even disinformation.

Tell you what, Mr. Chandler. It would be an honor for me to purchase/give you her book if you don't have it already. Send me shipping instructions, and I'll purchase it from her website and have it sent to you. Here are the conditions.

(a) You will give it a fair and objective reading. Mine it for nuggets of truth.
(b) If Mr. Cole doesn't have the textbook (other than "for shame, for shame"), you will either loan/give him your copy or help him purchase one for himself.
(c) From both of you, I want to know "the good, the bad, and the ugly". I don't want to be the duped useful idiot.

I'll tell you right now, I haven't finished reading it. I've got a job, a family, a life. I'm past the half way mark, though. Here's my review so far.

The text and analysis of the 1st 1/2 is solid. Great new ways to debunk the official govt conspiracy theory with physics. Throughout the book, its 500 color images in the larger (7"x10") format with tables and maps to correlate the views of destruction ~ALONE~ secure the value of this book in your 9/11 library even before reading the text. They put into perspective the totality of the destruction for those of us who have never been to NYC. I'm probably 1/8 of the way into the 2nd 1/2. By golly, she is making a convincing case for alternative energy sources; nano-thermite is not the end-all-cure-all. I predict that even if the 2nd 1/2 unravels as sweet-as-honey distracting disinformation, we'll still want it in our 9/11 libraries to show our grandchildren how our generation was manipulated and played. I reserve the right to be out-of-agreement with her final conclusions, particular if rational discussion convinces me otherwise.

I don't get any kick-back for plugging the book; I have no affiliation with Dr. Wood; the purchase of her book does come out of my own pocket.

I have an open mind in my search for truth and greater understanding. I hope you do as well.

I applaud you for your services to truth.

Sincerely,

Maxwell C. Bridges

Hide Above


David Chandler : Terminating this thread...

2011-05-19

I'm terminating this thread.
--David Chandler

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Sincere in my Offer of Dr. Wood's textbook

2011-05-19

Dear Mr. Chandler,

I suppose one could interpret my offer of purchasing and sending you Dr. Wood's textbook in the wrong way. I apologize.

I am sincere in my offer.

If you would prefer me making a PayPal payment to you and have you order the book yourself, that is okay with me. Providing, of course, that my original conditions are met as well a new condition that I have some assurance that you order the book. Provide me some proof of the order (with delivery details blacked out), and I will refund you whatever you paid. ~$50 is what I paid for my book and its shipping.

If you're going to disparage Dr. Wood's textbook, let it be for the right reasons. Not owning it or cracking its cover? Not good reasons.

Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges

Hide Above


David Chandler : No Conditions

2011-05-19

Send me the book if you like, but I won't agree to any conditions. I will skim it, satisfy my curiosity whether there is anything new in her current reincarnation, and try to understand what is in there that appeals to the masses. If her reasoning or evidence is truly compelling I will of course take note, but don't hold your breath.
Mailing address: {removed}
--David Chandler

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Order Placed for Dr. Wood's textbook

2011-05-20

Dear Mr. Chandler,

The order has been placed and should arrive next week some time, Tuesday or Wednesday. Please do me the small favor of letting me know when you receive it or if you haven't received it by Friday (5/27).

Even in your skimming, you will recognize some value in her textbook, particularly when you look at various pictures and correlate them through her tables to views marked on maps. This is an invaluable assistance for all 9/11 researchers to seeing literally "the bigger picture." Should your idle skimming turn into earnest study, remember that the evidence presented is not married to her conclusions, and that even if some of her conclusions are thrown out in support of other theories, those other theories will still have to address in some manner the evidence that she presents, else they'll be lacking.

Have a great weekend.

Maxwell C. Bridges

Hide Above


David Chandler : Appreciate the Attitude

2011-05-20

I appreciate the attitude expressed here and the earnestness of your concern about these issues. I assure you I am focused on the facts and am as alert to anomalies as any other 9/11 researcher. Thank you.
--David Chandler

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Have you received Dr. Wood's Textbook?

2011-06-01

Dear Mr. Chandler,

Have you perchance received Dr. Wood's textbook that I had the honor of purchasing for you? Or should I start tracking down where the order might be held up?

Sincerely,

Hide Above


David Chandler : First impressions of Dr. Wood's textbook

2011-06-01

Yes, it arrived safely and I've started looking through it.  Sorry not to acknowledge when I received it.  (Actually I thought I did send you an email when it came, but I apparently slipped up on that.)

First impressions:
--Heavy book.  Heavy pages.  Extravagant use of color.  Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project.
--I was rather put off by the way she implies she is the only one seriously researching 9/11.
--I'm going to have to read through it with a highlighter in hand.  There's not a whole lot I agree with.  I haven't gotten that far yet.

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Thank you in advance for your summertime efforts into reading Dr. Wood's textbook

2011-06-01

Dear Mr. Chandler,

Thank you for the confirmation of receipt. With summer vacation from teaching upon you, I guess I've given you your summer reading project.

Your first impression matched mine: "Heavy book.  Heavy pages.  Extravagant use of color.  Somebody put a bunch of money behind this project." In fact, I was thinking "CIA funding..."

Your second impression regarding who is seriously researching 9/11? You rightly limited your analysis (and stance within the 9/11 Truth Movement) to the unexplained anomalies in the physics of the building(s) collapse. Nothing wrong with that. Others in the 9/11 movement also picked easy to defend lines (e.g., free-fall) to hook the uninformed into becoming better informed, into questioning, and into action.

But where I have to agree with Dr. Wood is that she asks and at least attempts to answer questions regarding the energy requirements of the "dustification" of building structure and content.

Ever seen the irreverent but funny Monty Python's "The Life of Brian"? Mistaken for Christ, Brian touches a gord in being chased by the multitudes and loses a sandal. The masses then become divided "Follow the gord that he touched; it is a sign" and "No, follow the sandal he lost, for it is the sign." Nano-thermite in the religion of 9/11 is becoming almost as silly as the gord/sandal multitudes, and distract from the questions about energy requirements in the observed destruction (and why?)

I am glad that you have highlighter in hand and aren't merely skimming the book. You say, "there's not a whole lot you agree with", I will be curious to know whether this stems from her conclusions or her perception of the evidence (or what is evidence.) Assuming her conclusions will be out-of-synch with yours, it will be important to keep evidence separate, to know what evidence you consider valid/invalid, and to know how the leaders of "mainstream 9/11 Truth" address the (remaining valid) evidence. Pick out the nuggets of truth. (For me, WTC-4, the bathtub, and the K.E. of falling debris were nuggets.) I don't want to be the duped useful idiot on the Dr. Wood front.

Thank you in advance for your summertime efforts.

All the best,

Sincerely

Hide Above


Señor El Once : legs of the straw man

2011-09-04

Lots of things are wrong with this Legge/Chandler piece. Take this short passage.

One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed.



I agree with it up to the second comma. But for the "the only purpose" of a straw man to be ridicule of the 9/11 Truth Movement really shows either their failure of imagination, or another purpose more befitting of their own straw man efforts: misdirection.

Case in point, they immediately take swipes at other non-CIT theories without proof and as if their being wrong was self-evident.

Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by "dustification" of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of "directed free energy". It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions.



The straw man in the above is that Legge/Chandler seem to be writing about the outer structure, which indeed was severed and fell in normal lengths. Their analysis does not go into the inner-content, the concrete floors, the inner core, where indeed we discover dustification of most things. Was steel dustified? That might be a stretch, except that some nifty bent beams and "meteor melts" were present (that super-duper nano-thermite can't explain), and the debris does not seem to account for all of the steel from the core.

No need to dwell on this further, except that -- compliments of me -- Chandler has had a copy of Dr. Judy Wood's textbook since May, and he was charged with giving it an objective evaluation. This two sentence dismissal doesn't cut it.

No explanation involving "directed free energy" or nuclear devices could account for the way separate explosions appeared in the Twin Towers, layer by layer, descending at a precise rate, as the towers came down.



Legge/Chandler again show their failure of imagination with this overly generalized statement. Evidently, they've never heard of having back-up plans to the back-up plans or implementing overly redundant systems or using DEW and super-duper nano-thermite and [name something here].


The first leg of the straw man in their attack on CIT is found in this series of quotes:

The NTSB data appeared to show that the flight terminated at a point too high to have hit the Pentagon.

John Farmer used radar data to check the FDR file data and concluded that indeed several seconds of data was missing from the end of the file.7 Recently Warren Stutt discovered that there was one more frame of data at the end of the FDR file which had not been decoded previously. He wrote a decoding program and managed to extract a further 4 seconds of data. This data includes radio height above ground, which now shows the plane descending smoothly, pulling up safely and hitting the Pentagon close to the ground, in accordance with the majority of eyewitness reports.



It is rather curious that that last four seconds were missing and then were suddenly found. And upon decoding, supposedly shows a smoothly descending plane with a flight path in accordance with the majority of the eyewitness reports.

Here is the linchpin straw man in their text for which they have no reference.

It is further argued by PFT that the radar data must be in error as it does not correspond with the pressure altimeter record, which still shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon. On approach to the Pentagon, however, the plane is flying much faster than normal for an aircraft at low altitude and so would be operating well beyond the calibration envelope for the altimeter. It appears that, at least on this particular plane, a substantial error is produced, increasing as the plane accelerates and descends. In contrast the radio height would not be affected by speed. It is therefore reasonable to accept the height it shows, which corresponds with the height shown by the damage to the light poles and the face of the Pentagon. This has been fully discussed in a previous paper where it is shown that the altimeter reading and radio height reading correspond closely with each other at normal altitude and speed but diverge as the plane descends and accelerates to abnormal speeds.Error: Reference source not found



Yes, altimeters are affected by temperature, speed, and height. However, the calibration goes out of whack at high speeds and high altitudes. Nothing I have found suggests such grave errors at low altitudes.

It is therefore ~NOT~ reasonable to accept the height [radio data] shows, particularly when (a) chain-of-custody and analysis issues are major for that critical last 4 seconds of "new found" data, and (b) no evidence is presented to support that altimeters operate beyond their calibration envelope at high speeds and low altitude.

Because Legge/Chandler go into great detail to determine the speed of the aircraft and the low altitude range (for hitting and flyover) is known, Legge/Chandler failed document the calibration envelope, failed to calculate how high speeds at low altitude plays a role in the calibration, and what sort of errors would be introduced. (Would the plane be higher than the altimeter reading or lower? By how much? With an error introduced to the altimeter reading based on speed at low altitude, could the plane have been high enough still to have missed the Pentagon?)

In conclusion, the Legge/Chandler piece is fitting to the 10-year anniversary of hit-pieces aimed at ridiculing 9/11 truth.

Hide Above

Hide Above


Señor El Once : the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge

2011-09-19

Dear Mr. Chandler,

I studied the paper you co-authored with Frank Legge.

The core piece of information — the flight data recorder from the Pentagon plane — has authentication issues and chain-of-custody issues right and left. The kicker for me was the original FDR information was missing the final four seconds. Along comes a mysterious “John Farmer” who found a way to re-build/extract the flight path of those final four seconds. Lo and behold, the path went smoothly into the Pentagon, despite being in disagreement with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low.

Why were those final four seconds missing from the FDR?
Why weren't they originally decoded, because they represent the money-shot time period?
Seems to me if the FDR really did have such a smooth flight-path into the Pentagon, it would have been made public sooner.

Back to the disagreement of the final four seconds with the readings from other aircraft instruments that said the plane was never that low. Those readings are explained away in your paper as being in error, owing to the aircraft speed, without analysis of why they would be in error and the direction that error would take. In other words, does a pressure-based altimeter give off measurements that are higher or lower than actual altitude when speed is increased?

The pressure based altimeter at high speed and high altitude is known to introduce errors. My meager research on the subject does not show indications of errors at low altitude at high speed or how the error would be manifested.

Thus, Mr. Chandler, in case you didn't recognize it, the above is a lynch-pin in your whole paper's premise, and it is one that you haven't proven.

As for the "NOC flight path being physically implausible", this is only true if you are trying to get a NOC flight path to also swerve and account for light-pole damage and holes in the Pentagon. Separating the flight path from the inflicted damage, then a NOC flight path is not out of the question. Who ever or what ever piloted the downward spiral could also land whatever the aircraft really was on a supposedly too short Reagan Airport Runway. They also could have flown it to other destinations with hardly anyone paying a lot of attention, because planes taking off and landing are pretty normal for the Reagan airport.

None of the 9/11 planes each with hundreds of thousands of serial numbered parts that could uniquely identify the exact aircraft have had such evidence presented to the public. Thus, doubt persists. First responders at the Pentagon reported seeing bodies. The distinction, however, is rarely made: passenger in the aircraft or victim at work in the Pentagon? If there was no aircraft that hit the building but we were led to believe there was, then the merging of the victims from planes would merge with victims from the building.

The Pentagon is full of people who take orders and who essentially plan for war (or defense) as their livelihood. Orders not to talk about 9/11 have been given. (Even NY first responders were given such gag orders.) I suspect we'll be able to find very little truth coming from the Pentagon, because doubt and confusion serves them better.

On another subject from the beginning of your paper, you write:

One development that appears to be a tactic in the ongoing cover-up is the high profile promotion of transparently false theories, "straw men," the only purpose of which appears to be to allow the 9/11 Truth Movement to be ridiculed. ... Dr Judy Wood has published a book asserting that the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were felled by "dustification" of the steel, which she claims is achieved by the use of "directed free energy". 1 It is, however, obvious that the steel was severed and fell in normal lengths, otherwise intact, as seen in conventional demolitions.



First of all, this comment was irrelevant to your paper. It has more the appearance of you and Mr. Legge setting up your own broad-brush straw man.

Secondly, "dustification" of the steel is a misrepresentation of Dr. Wood's book. If you read it rather than skimmed it, you would know this. I am now in the camp of directed energy weapons, due to their ease in installation and targeting. They turned water molecules that were trapped within content into steam, whose expanding volumic pressure blew apart the content containers, leaving dust and steam. Pulverization of concrete and drywall is a massive energy sink. Where did the energy come from? This is a separate question from what caused the destruction. Could it have been "dircted free energy" from the weatherman-conspiracy to completely unreport Hurrican Erin that they'd been tracking and reporting all week, just not when it was close to NY on 9/11/2001? Or could it have been bad ass power distribution cables they ran down the elevator shafts and plugged into some nuclear or cold-fusion reactors? The latter at least would explain the anomalous radiation readings. Pack/paint the power generator and the separated DEW into their own "blanket" of super-duper nano-thermite, so that much of the mechanism remnants can be destroyed and obscured.

Third, Dr. Wood raises important questions about energy requirements. She compiles lots of evidence that most in the truth movement do not address, thereby making their theories the weaker ones. She questions some of the evidence that we were led to believe. Glowing does not always equate to hot.

An objective analysis of the evidence (and connections) in Dr. Wood's textbook is required. Your hand-wavy dismissal doesn't cut it. Make it your next peer-reviewed effort.

Hide Above

Hide Above


Señor El Once : Making the Movement look ridiculous?

2011-09-20

Dear Mr. Chandler,

Allow me to provide some perspective. About the time their first term was over, the Bush Administration had 47 major scandals that individually would have brought down any other administration. True to Karl Rove's remarks to a reporter (paraphrased): "We are an empire now and create our own realities. While you are judiciously analyzing one, we will have created two or three other realities." The Bush Administration kept piling it on. With the help of a complicit corporate media constantly framing President Bush as a war president and projecting American flags waving proudly behind the logos of the day -- "America at War", "The Global War on Terror", "The War against Terror" --, with sound-bite reporting, and with the telly-viewing public's short attention span, details on the scandal four or five scandals ago leaked at the right time overshadowed the scandal-of-the-day and kept dots from being connected.

9/11 was this "pile it on" modus operandus in miniture. One hijacked and crashed aircraft would have been analyzed to death like one space shuttle disaster. Four, however, pile it on and play against each other, whereby details from one get mixed in the others so that the public's cognitive dissonance will happily avoid a headache and settle on theories advertized as Occam Razor, coincidentally the very conspiracy theories promoted by the corporate media and govt spokemen before the dust of the towers had even settled.

The fact is that each of the four need to be viewed separately where techniques for one (inserted faked radar blips) may or may not have been used for another (cruise missile). In the case of the destruction of the WTC complex, redundant and supplementary destructive mechanisms from one building do not have to equate to that of another.

I take issue with a small passage in the joint statement by David Chandler and Jonathan Cole

There are groups that insist the towers at the World Trade Center were taken down by space lasers. Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms. What better way to tar the movement than to seed it with absurdly false theories that fuel a media circus, while making the Movement look ridiculous?



The demolition of the towers clearly had origins within them. Framing this "crazy" notion as space lasers is deceitful on two counts. One is that it attempts to take off of the table how lasers (or directed energy weapons) might have legitimately been used within the towers to achieve the pulverization on content. The other is that it attempts to take space lasers off the table where they might legitimately apply, like being responsible for the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of WTC-4 main edifice at a neat line with its North Wing. What was the telly weatherman-conspiracy on the morning of 9/11? Before planes were hijacked, the conspiracy was not to report Hurricane Erin at it closest point to NYC although they'd been tracking and reporting it all week.

A second part of your strawman passage was: "Others claim no planes hit the Twin Towers at all: they were just holograms." I am a no-planer of the "September Clues" school, such a duped useful idiot am I. However, I do not endorse holograms. In fact, those who promote holograms are usually not in the no-planer camp, such as yourself. They are detractors who try to mis-frame and ridicule the supportable theory of no-planes by adding elements as you have done with this attempt at an off-hand dismissal.

What is the A to Z extent of the proof that commercial planes hit the towers? Pixels on the telly. It is not a hangar of meticulously excavated airplane parts with serial numbers that matched the documented maintenance records of the commercial planes. We have seen pixels on the telly do remarkable things with regards to special effects over the years, but that doesn't make it real.

In my travels around the 9/11 block being duped by one notion or another, evidence and convincing arguments are what got me to believe one thing and what can get me to believe another. All of the things you ridicule? Lasers -- space-based or spire-based within the towers -- and no-commercial-planes via telly pixels? These have not been debunked. Ridiculed? For sure. Definitively proven wrong with evidence, etc.? Nope.

In fact, as a physics teacher, Mr. Chandler, you owe it to yourself to explore "September Clues" in your next peer-reviewed effort after your peer-reviewed piece on Dr. Wood's textbook, because the lack of crash physics at the towers is one of the glaring pieces of evidence that expose how we were manipulated with television.



You think that exploring the totality of the evidence into the areas of advanced technology and computer generated imagery tars the movement. However, it is still open for debate what the absurdly false theories are. The fuel a media circus? Gee, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been trying to get that for a decade and would be a damn good thing, because such a media circus would have brought awareness to the public, something the govt and complicit corporate media actively suppressed.

Making the Movement look ridiculous? What does this is not taking the discussion where it needs to go. What better way to steer (and tar) the movement.

Hide Above

Hide Above


Señor El Once : started but didn't finish Dr. Wood's textbook

2011-10-04

Dear Mr. Chandler,

A 500 page book, albeit with 500 large pictures, and all you can come up with in your good, bad, and ugly book report to supposedly debunk it in its entirety is that you started but didn't finish it, because you had better things to do with your time?! How well does this excuse fly with you when lobbed by one of your high school students? Thought so.

Would one of those "better things" be the "totally disgusting" paper that you co-authored with Frank Legge and that contained glaring weaknesses pointed out above in this thread, but also as it turns out years before? How was it that Mr. Legge pulled the wool over your eyes, Mr. Chandler, that you would participate in such a farce? I suppose money does talk, and it is embarrassing what our nation pays you teachers, so I don't necessarily blame you for compromising your scientific integrity and taking some cheese while you could.

Regarding your perimeter wall unit falling ahead of the rest of the debris and then emitting a puff of smoke before accelerating dramatically in a change of direction. Wonderful observation, Mr. Chandler. Yes, it is another unambiguous smoking gun proof of explosives.

And now you want me to explain that with space beams.

For starters, I have never asserted a mutual exclusive causality to any of the towers destructions. They had back-up plans to their back-up plans to assure the thoroughness of the destruction. What happened within the confines of the steel outer shell was different than what happened to the outer shell itself. My wild-ass speculation is that their planning required the outer shell to remain in tact for milli-seconds longer than the inner destructive aspects both to contain the inner destruction and to shield the observation of its destructive mechanisms from outside observers. Once the insides were dustified, something like nano-thermite could blow the bolts connecting the outer mesh together.

Of course, your space beams comment reflects how little of Dr. Judy Wood's book that you read. Maybe you and I can agree one day that elements of her book are disinformation. Your task, though, was to find them and prove them as such. You haven't. More importantly, your task was to recognize the nuggets of truth in her evidence, preserve them, and assure that whatever theories you promote also address them. This you haven't done either. (What sort of grade would you give your students for such piddly efforts?)

Because you are so flippant in your space beams comment and are so eager to see how space beams could potentially account for the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, I will indulge you in your little game and set aside for the sake of discussion my belief and its alignment with yours regarding the deployment of explosives. However, I will change your stilted framing from space beams to directed energy weapons (DEW). Why? Because DEW could be planted within the towers. The power-down periods in various weekends leading up to 9/11 could very well have served to install energy diverters that would, when required, re-route building power to DEW devices.

What happens when an inflated but unknotted balloon is let go? The force of the escaping air pushes the remnants of the balloon dramatically in a change of direction, no? What happens when you microwave excessively some liquid in a sealed tupperware container? Due to the fact that the lid's seal is the weak part of the container, the internal pressure generated by the transition of the liquid into a gas will cause the lid to pop off dramatically in a change of direction.

My premise is that most/much of the "smoke" we see in the pulverization of the towers isn't smoke. It is instead the dustification of content and steam created by the energy directed at content (e.g., concrete, drywall, etc.) The DEW mechanism excited residual water molecules in the content whose sudden and rapid expansion into steam caused the content itself to blow apart, not unlike what happens when food (e.g., refried beans, stew) is excessively microwaved in a kitchen.

Directed energy is the key phrase.

Keeping with your challenge that DEW has to explain the observed piece of debris accelerating dramatically in a change of direction, we simply have to speculate that maybe that piece of debris had something (other than explosives, right?) attached to it or in its composition such that when it fell into the electromagnetic or other types of energy fields associated with DEW -- whether those fields were direct or accidentally reflected --, the rapid change of state of its composition caused it to launch itself like a released balloon into a change of direction.

Do I truly believe this for the example in your video? No. Do I disagree with your premise that nano-thermite may have been an accelerant on that piece of debris to turn it into a rocket projectile? No.

9/11 was an overly thorough and redundant operation. I have never discounted that nano-thermite may have been involved as one of the mechanisms of destruction. The issue has always been: nano-thermite cannot explain all of the features of the destruction and its aftermath.

Speaking of math, do the math. How long could nano-thermite burn under the rubble? Trick question. A more accurate question is, what quantities of nano-thermite would be required to achieve the recorded duration of the under rubble fires? Make it simple and assume, say, 4 weeks.

More math. Calculate how much nano-thermite would be required to bring down the towers. Then calculate the energy requirements of pulverization of content. Then extrapolate and determine how much nano-thermite would be required to achieve this and meet that energy requirement of pulverization. Then Occam Razor figure out how many man-trips and effort it would take to wire it all up.

Your answers to this challenge will prove to you that nano-thermite does not explain all of the towers destruction. Another destructive mechanism and its energy source must be sought.

Wild-ass speculation on my part. They had milli-nuclear reactors or cold-fusion reactors plugged into the building's power lines that were diverted to power the DEW devices at two or three levels (including a lower level to clean up after themselves). Both towers had spires or residual structure left standing after floors and walls seemingly collapsed around them, because they supported the DEW devices for a time and the destructive energy was directed away from its support. The measured radiation levels can be attributed to the power sources, as can the hot-spots (e.g., fizzling nuclear material). Whatever they used to power DEW was booby-trapped, say, in a blanket of nano-thermite to burn up the encasement of the power source, which conveniently explains the traces of nano-thermite from places where hot-spots burned. The fields created by both DEW and the energy source can explain much of the anomaloous damage to vehicles.

Yes, elements of my wild-ass speculation are probably wrong, and I want them corrected. However, they are closer to the truth than your limited thinking and purposeful braking of the 9/11 Truth Movement from exploring the energy requirements (best documented by Dr. Wood). Your dismissive comments and premature parking at nano-thermite are just that, and they lack substance.

Go back and try again, Mr. Chandler. And this time, read the book first, because your book review from the lofty position of not having read it... well? You and everyone else gets the picture.

Hide Above

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : Over Half a Year since receiving Dr. Wood's Textbook

2012-01-09

Dear Mr. Chandler,

It has been over half a year since you received the copy of Dr. Wood's "Where Did the Towers Go?" compliments of me.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly from you?

Dr. Wood presents a lot of evidence that any contender for a valid conspiracy theory would need to address.

Word of caution is that each building needs to be discussed separately. For example, DEW probably wasn't deployed on WTC-7. Space-based DEW would not have been applicable for the observed destruction of the towers that clearly were weakened from within and not top-down. I like to call that "spire-based DEW" to indicate what supported the initial devices until a clean-up operation later took out the spire. However, when looking at the massive crater in WTC-6, the cylindrical bore-holes in WTC-5, and the leveling of the WTC-4 main edifice (and not its North Wing), space-based DEW may not be so far fetched.

With regards to free-energy and hurricane Erin, we shouldn't discount the science, although I personally am not on board with that as the energy source. It would be easier to use the buildings wiring or to run bad-ass power cables down the elevator shafts to some milli-nuclear or cold-fusion energy generator. Such generators are how my beliefs have changed since first contacting you when I was championing milli-nukes. Dr. Wood's evidence helps convince me it wasn't milli-nukes, but the measured radiation, first responder ailments, duration of under-rubble fires, melted steel, and anomalous damage to vehicles (indicating escaping field effects) hint strongly that a milli-nuclear or cold-fusion generator were somehow involved. Pack these and the DEW devices in nano-thermite to help burn away the evidence and lead us into false beliefs that nano-thermite was involved almost exclusively.

Wheat from the chaff. Dr. Wood might have some misinformation or non-applicable information. But she also has the chapters pretty well compartmentalized. Evidence presented needs to be addressed.

Something I recently discovered were the damaged cars under the bridge. The police car with the burned front end and interior but intact trunk area? Turns out the trunk has four numbers on it. I've seen other images of that car and its trunk (open and numbers visible) from other locations, meaning the car was later towed to the bridge as suggested by others. Still, the damage is anomalous, can't be accounted for by "nano-thermite in falling dust", and is even more believable as evidence of EMP/Field side-effects from its closer location rather than the bridge location.

At any rate, above are at least two areas where I disagree with items presented by Dr. Wood, but not to the point of throwing out her colorful book. Shows I'm thinking for myself.

Lest there be any doubt, I am "Señor El Once" on Truth & Shadows and publicly dressed you down for the few dismissive one-liner statements you provided in your book reviews, as well as for the glaring issues in your co-authored piece on NOC with Frank Legge.

- Quest for consensus: Toronto 9/11 hearings navigate Pentagon minefield
- David Ray Griffin, Barrie Zwicker support CIT’s ‘staged evidence’ scenario

Although you didn't agree to the conditions that I applied, they weren't very oppressive. For the good of the truth movement, you ought to reconsider what they were. Namely.

(a) You will give it a fair and objective reading. Mine it for nuggets of truth.
(b) If Mr. Cole doesn't have the textbook (other than "for shame, for shame"), you will either loan/give him your copy or help him purchase one for himself.
(c) From both of you, I want to know "the good, the bad, and the ugly".

Hope that your holidays were refreshing. Enjoy the new semester.

Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges

Hide Above


David Chandler : gggg

2012-01-09

That's right. You sent the book on your own initiative even though I was forthright in telling you I would not be bound by your conditions. Presumably you thought the book would persuade me to change my views. The fact is the book did nothing to sway my views. I see Judy Wood's theories as baseless and a distraction from real progress in understanding the 9/11 events. I am certainly NOT going to waste my time trying to dissuade you from your firmly held opinions. Please don't waste your time trying to change mine.

Hide Above


Maxwell C. Bridges : gggg

2012-01-10

Dear Mr. Chandler,

Your presumption is only half right. Certainly I expected that if the book had validity and if you had an open-mind, it would persuade you to change "your firmly held views."

But more importantly for me and my predicament as a duped useful idiot, if the book had no validity, I expected that you & your esteemed 9/11 Truther colleagues would assist me in finding its errors so that I could change my opinions. You would have been doing a great service not just for me personally, but the whole truth movement. Your book review -- based on having read the book and found both its strengths and flaws -- could have put to rest a whole genre of fringe 9/11 lunatic speculation.

Your admission that you started but haven't even finished the textbook puts your previous statements about your open-mind into question. Because of this fact, I doubt that you can even articulate exactly what Dr. Wood's theories are. Here's a clue: she presents scant few. The real gems are the evidence that few others present much less address.

I saw how you wasted your time -- with Frank Legge. You ought to be offering a public apology for that one. It was certainly easy for even me to find the glaring weaknesses in that piece of work (e.g., being based on highly questionable "recovered FDR" data from a dubious source, unfounded assumptions about altimeter limitations at low-altitude and high-speed.) When researching this after the fact, it turns out these flaws were or should have been known to you before you lent your name as a co-author.

So what was truly baseless and a distraction from real progress in understanding the 9/11 events?

Again, I am not saying Dr. Wood's textbook is the gospel, but it does have nuggets of truth to be mined and incorporated into the modifications to other theories. The big one was the energy requirements (as well as logistics) of content pulverization which fits squarely into the realm of physics, your area of interest.

Seeing how it appears that your preconceived notions of the textbook's invalidity prevents you from even finishing it, then as Jonathon Cole's gatekeeper, how about you passing it along to him... as per one of my original conditions. Certainly that shouldn't be too much to ask.

All the best,
Maxwell C. Bridges

Hide Above