22-04-2011, 07:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-04-2011, 09:57 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
James's methodological maxim (derived from Sherlock Holmes, of course), is quite right. New interviews I am currently doing with Chuck Boldwyn, a retired high-school physics, chemistry, and math teacher, are shedding new light on how to differentiate between Judy's theory of the case and alternative explanations.
Before I say more, I want to add that Chuck has also done exceptional work to explain why collapse theories, such as Jeffrey Orling's, cannot be correct. Let me add a few comments about that first, where I will mention some of the posters Chuck uses to illustrate and explain his points at http://abbrv.co.uk/vdB
(1) Orling makes the assumption that every floor represents equal mass (steel) in comparison with every other, which is grossly false. The steel diminished in its thickness from 6" in the basements to 1/4" at the top. As poster #28 displays, for Orling to be correct, 1.4% of each building's mass would have to overcome 98.4%.
(2) Jeffrey has persistently ignored the key point that, if the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel, since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, there should have been a gradual asymmetrical sagging and tilting of those upper floors, not the complete, total and abrupt demolition which we observe.
(3) What he proposes, therefore, can be illustrated as follows. Assume you had a stack of 50-cent pieces, say, welded together, and another stack of quarters atop of them, also welded together and to the stack below. If a small stack of dimes, welded together, were dropped on that massive stack, would a collapse ensue?
With regard to Judy's work, what Chuck is doing is going through the 43 assertions that constitute the summing up of the evidence that has to be explained, which are found on pages 480-484 of her book, and offering alternative explanations that, as he maintains, appear to offer simpler explanations of data she is misinterpreting.
(a) The first poster (as they are arranged today), shows that what Judy calls her "sillystrings" seem to actually be pieces of steel that are burning from thermite, which leave trails as they fall. The existence of chemical reactions like these, by the way, also puts the quietus to collapse theories based upon mechanical explanations.
(b) There is a crucial test of Judy's theory in the analysis of the dust samples that have been shown to include tiny iron spheres since, if Judy's right and it was done using DEWs, which turned the steel into dust, then those samples should include steel powder. If there is no steel powder in dust samples, her theory is wrong.
© The fuming that Judy so often cites may be more easily explainable as residue from the use of thermite, which cannot be extinguished by water because it has its own oxygen supply (Al2O3). If Chuck is right, a huge quantity of thermite appears to have been used with some source of explosive energy, quite possibly mini-nukes.
(d) Similarly, what Judy offers as examples of other-than-by-DEW-explainable effects, such as the "fuzzballs" and the "toasted cars", appear to be effects of fuming from residual thermite and of tiny thermite particles hitting parts of the vehicles that are not fire retardant, as posters #9 and #9a explain, not to mention clothing that caught fire.
We have now had three two-hour programs that focus on WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, which are being archived on "The Real Deal", the most recent of which will be broadcast tonight (5-7 PM/CT) over revereradio.net. (Just click on the name of the program playing and you should immediately access the show.)
Judy has maintained that WTC-7 and the Twin Towers were demolished using the same techniques, which is contradicted by the fact that all the floors of WTC-7 fell together and left a stack of pancakes about 12% the height of the original, while for the towers, their floors remained stationary and there were no pancake stacks.
What may be common between all three, however, is the extensive use of themite to prep the buildings for demolition--which may explain the massive fuming coming from one side of WTC-7--as well as the peculiar effects that Judy has noted, where mini-nukes can be arranged to bring about many patterns of effects.
Chuck's studies are convincing me that we may be close to figuring out how it was done by combining (i) Judy's compilation of the damage that has to be explained, (ii) the evidence of the use of thermite as an incendiary combined with (iii) some source of explosive energy, which I now think may have involved the use of mini-nukes.
The archives for "The Real Deal" may be found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
Before I say more, I want to add that Chuck has also done exceptional work to explain why collapse theories, such as Jeffrey Orling's, cannot be correct. Let me add a few comments about that first, where I will mention some of the posters Chuck uses to illustrate and explain his points at http://abbrv.co.uk/vdB
(1) Orling makes the assumption that every floor represents equal mass (steel) in comparison with every other, which is grossly false. The steel diminished in its thickness from 6" in the basements to 1/4" at the top. As poster #28 displays, for Orling to be correct, 1.4% of each building's mass would have to overcome 98.4%.
(2) Jeffrey has persistently ignored the key point that, if the fires had burned hot enough and long enough to weaken the steel, since the fires were asymmetrically distributed, there should have been a gradual asymmetrical sagging and tilting of those upper floors, not the complete, total and abrupt demolition which we observe.
(3) What he proposes, therefore, can be illustrated as follows. Assume you had a stack of 50-cent pieces, say, welded together, and another stack of quarters atop of them, also welded together and to the stack below. If a small stack of dimes, welded together, were dropped on that massive stack, would a collapse ensue?
With regard to Judy's work, what Chuck is doing is going through the 43 assertions that constitute the summing up of the evidence that has to be explained, which are found on pages 480-484 of her book, and offering alternative explanations that, as he maintains, appear to offer simpler explanations of data she is misinterpreting.
(a) The first poster (as they are arranged today), shows that what Judy calls her "sillystrings" seem to actually be pieces of steel that are burning from thermite, which leave trails as they fall. The existence of chemical reactions like these, by the way, also puts the quietus to collapse theories based upon mechanical explanations.
(b) There is a crucial test of Judy's theory in the analysis of the dust samples that have been shown to include tiny iron spheres since, if Judy's right and it was done using DEWs, which turned the steel into dust, then those samples should include steel powder. If there is no steel powder in dust samples, her theory is wrong.
© The fuming that Judy so often cites may be more easily explainable as residue from the use of thermite, which cannot be extinguished by water because it has its own oxygen supply (Al2O3). If Chuck is right, a huge quantity of thermite appears to have been used with some source of explosive energy, quite possibly mini-nukes.
(d) Similarly, what Judy offers as examples of other-than-by-DEW-explainable effects, such as the "fuzzballs" and the "toasted cars", appear to be effects of fuming from residual thermite and of tiny thermite particles hitting parts of the vehicles that are not fire retardant, as posters #9 and #9a explain, not to mention clothing that caught fire.
We have now had three two-hour programs that focus on WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, which are being archived on "The Real Deal", the most recent of which will be broadcast tonight (5-7 PM/CT) over revereradio.net. (Just click on the name of the program playing and you should immediately access the show.)
Judy has maintained that WTC-7 and the Twin Towers were demolished using the same techniques, which is contradicted by the fact that all the floors of WTC-7 fell together and left a stack of pancakes about 12% the height of the original, while for the towers, their floors remained stationary and there were no pancake stacks.
What may be common between all three, however, is the extensive use of themite to prep the buildings for demolition--which may explain the massive fuming coming from one side of WTC-7--as well as the peculiar effects that Judy has noted, where mini-nukes can be arranged to bring about many patterns of effects.
Chuck's studies are convincing me that we may be close to figuring out how it was done by combining (i) Judy's compilation of the damage that has to be explained, (ii) the evidence of the use of thermite as an incendiary combined with (iii) some source of explosive energy, which I now think may have involved the use of mini-nukes.
The archives for "The Real Deal" may be found at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.
James Lewis Wrote:Peter, the way I see it, it's like Sherlock Holmes said...detective work is about eliminating the the impossible...when you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, however improbable, must be the truth.
Peter Lemkin Wrote:In my own opinion, I have studied the entire case very carefully over the last many years. I feel the main destructive demolition force was via the use of computer timed and carefully pre-planted nano-thermate [or some similar substance]. That said, there are many features of the events and evidence that can't be explained by an exothermic explosive alone; and I do believe it very likely that in tandem some kind[s] of DEW might have been used and this needs more study. Just as there was enormous resistance to 'no plane' at the Pentagon [and that is now more or less gaining acceptance]; Just as there was great resistance to explosive planned demolition - and that is now becoming quite widely accepted; there is enormous resistance to any talk of DEW or other exotic weapons. They all need to be researched, if they seem to explain the events and evidence....and then either accepted or discarded. Many think that Wood is totally insane, more so that she uses whimsical names for strange features after the event. I do not find her at all strange. She is thinking out of the box..but the 'box' was the official cock and bullshit story - that almost everyone now rejects....or soon will. So many parts of the official story fall apart with a little study....correction...all parts of it fall apart.