There are 54 course comments:
|At 07:54 on 11/02/08, Glenn Dormer from Uppsala, Sweden added:|
|At 11:27 on 11/02/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
Thermate, even if it was involved, is horse and buggy thinking -- it is so inadequate to account for the highly unconventional ""Ground Zero"" evidence that its promotion (especially by a U.S. DoE PhD fusion expert who keeps referring to "the planes" [sic]) must be considered technology-denying disinformation.
|At 11:52 on 11/02/08, Jacques Marcille from Montreal, Quebec added:|
Assuming the use of vertical strings of small non-fission-ignited fusion devices exploding sequentially to mimic gravitational collapse, would the heat generated not have melted/vaporized the steel structure of the buildings in large part, or at least have left their signature upon the remaining steel structures?
|At 12:44 on 11/02/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
Please try to avoid relying upon terms such as "pulverized" and "vaporized" (and "melted"), for they give a false impression by seriously downplaying and distracting from what is revealed by the highly unconventional physical evidence of extreme energy intensity, and thus they are misleading. (Even the word "collapse" is misleading.)
|At 02:45 on 11/10/08, Harold Saive from Gators 9/11 Truth added:|
|At 03:22 on 11/10/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
It is 911truth.org and its tentacles which define and distract and divide any "movement", while they suppress awareness of case-breaking evidence (1 2 3) and meaningful truths regarding 9/11. Besides omitting (and thus helping the government to bury) good evidence, they also lead and sustain discussion over, and encourage people to argue over and thus some people to believe in, the impossible:
"Thermate did it" is a pathetic limited-hangout disinfo campaign; chemical reactions/explosions cannot account for the widespread (evidence of) molecular dissociation at ""Ground Zero"". That evidence points to the [brief] presence of temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun, and chemical-reaction-based weaponry, such as thermate, just can't do that. (IOW, the 911 truth movement's "thermate theory" is no less inadequate and insufficient to account for the GZ physical evidence than is the government+media's plane-based hijacker-blaming conspiracy theory of 9/11.)
|At 03:45 on 11/10/08, Glenn Dormer from Uppsala, Sweden added:|
1) Why are you anonymous?
2) WTC7 was a classical controlled demolition unlike WTC1+2. Why do you suggest thermonuclear devices in WTC7?
You have besmirched Steven Jones' name while withholding your own. Are you a coward?
Glenn Dormer 911truth Uppsala, Sweden
|At 03:55 on 11/10/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
2) You are wrong: WTC7 was NOT "a classical controlled demolition", nor was WTC1 or WTC2. "controlled demolition" is among the recognized government/911truth limited-hangouts and disinformation campaigns. All 3 of the huge sudden building annihilations generated huge, ground-hugging pyroclastic debris flows, indicative of a volcano-sized energy release (such flows have only been observed accompanying volcanic eruptions and nuclear blasts, and there are no active volcanoes in lower Manhattan). No kind of classical conventional controlled demolition generates such debris flows.
3) Please just read the text (and follow the LLNL and Navy and other links), and listen to what he said, and then look at the pictures, and then draw your own conclusion regarding the true nature of the contributions to public 9/11 physics awareness by former/fired BYU professor Steven E. Jones.
Intellectual brilliance and lofty credentials and insider info+connections are no indicator (much less a guarantee) of a person's honesty or trustworthiness or truthfulness -- not even if they're wearing a lab coat or a suit and tie.
|At 11:03 on 11/10/08, Mike from Santa Cruz added:|
Any analysis of the destruction that would conclude with the involvement of fusion devices would be a very difficult analysis for most people to make, though many have been looking for something along those lines for quite awhile, including myself.
The evidence for thermite/thermate variations was easier to come by, and at this point is very difficult to refute, though it could never explain the extreme pulverization and the molten steel.
|At 13:33 on 11/10/08, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
Why focus on a possible cause of "pulverization" (a misleading conventional term which downplays, and diverts attention from, the far more extreme and revealing evidence of highly unconventional disintegration) when we have such good evidence of molecular dissociation?? Why divert attention from the misuse of secret/exotic weaponry against U.S. civilians, unless one is trying to cover up huge horrible 9/11 (and larger) crimes?
You claim that the supposed evidence of the use of thermite was easier to come by, which is not only incorrect (all of lower Manhattan was blanketed by that very special 'dust' laden with nanoparticles!) but it misses the point: thermite itself is very easy to come by (or even make one's self); as such its use, real or imagined, does not rule out any possible suspects (IOW, in terms of "who dunnit", it's basically an investigative wild goose chase and a dead end), while there very few entities with access to fissionless fusion devices...
As an analogy, if a dead body was to show up with a small knife wound, 3 large abdominal holes made by powerful laser blasts, and a sprained eyelash, what kind of investigator would strictly focus on the cause of the sprained eyelash and knife wound while completely ignoring, and even diverting attention from, the highly unconventional evidence of fatal wounds that could only have been caused by someone with access to a highly unusual specialized powerful weapon?
|At 14:47 on 12/06/08, A. Teacher from Indiana added:|
|At 19:39 on 12/13/08, John from Chesterland OH added:|
|At 21:22 on 02/02/09, I. Newton from Missing Rubble, NoPancake, NZ added:|
|At 00:59 on 02/10/09, Russ Hallberg from Portland, Oregon added:|
|At 15:24 on 02/20/09, Tony Stewart from Struthers, OH added:|
|At 17:39 on 07/18/09, 911 Skeptic from 911truthy.org added:|
I see that Dr. Steven E. Jones (and basically the entire "911truth movement") is now claiming that GZ evidence of nano-particles of iron and aluminum (which is entirely consistent with -- if not proof of -- the nuking of aluminum-clad steel skyscrapers) is somehow evidence of nano-thermite (a hypothesis which remains insufficient to account for what happened, part of the secret of triggering fissionless fusion, or total disinfo, take your pick).
|At 04:24 on 09/09/09, js from 124.181.21.** added:|
|At 23:22 on 10/01/09, Visiting Professor from a corrupt university added:|
People now accept that "the powers that be" own/sell oil. But clean (fissionless) fusion energy rightfully belongs to We The People, and would/could/should be used for the benefit of the entire planet and all its inhabitants. TPTB could not compete with, and have no interest (or percentage) in, that.
The Big Lie of 9/11 was primarily about enemy creation, and Homeland creation, not oil.
|At 14:43 on 12/25/09, psikeyhackr from WTC MIToo Momentum Interference Test added:|
After EIGHT YEARS why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. That 10,000 page report is CRAP!
Conspiracies are irrelevant.
|At 01:07 on 03/05/10, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
|At 09:10 on 03/11/10, Regina Antares from 203.87.178.** added:|
|At 23:57 on 03/22/10, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
True, "explosives" could have blasted steel beams outward, but no conventional explosive (including thermite) could have caused the even more extreme pieces of evidence, including A)the pyro flows (indicative of a volcanic-eruption-like amount of energy), B)the nano-dust everywhere (indicative of widespread molecular dissociation, which requires Sun-like energy intensity), and C)the roiling plumes of particles trailing from the flying/falling metal (aluminum-clad perimeter structural steel dissociating from having been exposed to super-intense energy).
It's not impossible that super-duper-nano-thermite was somehow involved in cleanly (ie, w/o the 'need' for radioactive nuclear fission) triggering a bunch of micro thermo-nuclear fusion devices, but clearly "thermite" is being used as a red herring, to throw people off the clean-nuclear scent.
We have blatantly visually obvious spectacular pyro flows, which have only been known to accompany volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations, plus we have corroborated evidence of widespread molecular dissociation (nanoparticles all over lower Manhattan), which occurs at (and results from matter having been subjected to) Sun-like temperatures far hotter than any conventional explosives or volcanic eruption... So just ignore 911truth and S.E. Jones and R. Gage et al, and all that talk of "explosives" and (plain old regular) "controlled demolition", and the dots are ridiculously easy to connect!
|At 00:24 on 05/30/10, JustnAmurrican from Las Bigass, NV added:|
|At 10:04 on 07/11/10, Nathanael Allen from Dallas/Ft Worth Texas added:|
|At 13:51 on 07/12/10, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
The hypothesis of fissionless fusion devices best explains what happened to the twin towers. As with their demise, WTC 7's generated a huge pyroclastic debris flow, the likes of which have only been seen accompanying volcanic eruptions and nuclear detontions.
Your point that a vertical string of them is not required to have taken down building 7 seems diversionary, as does your point about building 6... (there is also no evidence that fissionless fusion devices were used at the Pentagon -- so what?)
|At 09:10 on 08/19/10, NWOwned from Here to Eternity added:|
To me the 'Smoking Gun' is the Smoking Girders!! I mean WTF?! Mid-air disintegration and vapour trails.
You think I was born yesterday?
That's not right.
I ain't no building demo expert but THAT ain't no Gravity 'Collapse'.
No one else even tackles the 'Trailing Disintegration' thing nor attempts to explain it adequately.
|At 23:48 on 11/22/10, Peter from Sydney added:|
|At 16:07 on 03/09/11, Jeff Prager from Minneapolis, MN added:|
DUST, the final version-
Part 1 - Pages 1 to 109
Part 2 - Pages 110 to 199
Part 3 - Pages 200 to 310
|At 02:41 on 03/30/11, Mike from 216.255.101.** added:|
|At 02:55 on 03/30/11, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
Beyond that, JW, the great DEW champion, just ignores what is probably the best visual evidence of the possible use of DEWs (that very bright burst of light that came and went, in less than 1 video frame, at the very instant at which a DEW would have done the most good in helping to facilitate the illusion that a fragile aluminum bird can penetrate a structural steel wall with minimal deceleration/deformation) on 9/11. Further, she also seems unable/unwilling to comment on this hypothesis, which also happens to be consistent with the possibility that her true purpose is to keep thoughts (too) similar to these from entering people's heads...
|At 13:11 on 04/19/11, D Y from 911thology archive, Dimitri Khalezov added:|
I'll go one further. Dimitri Khalezov isn't merely a 'theorist' who is speculating, he claims to be a witness, and his explanation refutes Woods, Griffin, Jones, etc. in a manner rooted in knowledge, so he claims, circa 1/2010.
I won't spoil the 5-10 punchlines contained in his 26 part video (see url)
There are a few reasons why his explanation is the best-specific knowledge as a witness; simpler explanation re heat;
Of course, your site very correctly states what is and isn't important, so I don't mean to get carried away on 'how'...
|At 00:16 on 08/05/11, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
Khalezov claims that the twin towers and WTC7 were destroyed by underground old-fashioned atomic bombs (1 per building). He bases this primarily on his claimed knowledge of some supposed Soviet intelligence information regarding purported secret self-demolition capabilities built into U.S. skyscrapers. He strives to loosely fit the unconventional (ie, nuclear) aspects of the ""Ground Zero"" devastation to this supposed secret Soviet intelligence information. Parts of this he does worse than others, including by using conventional terms to refer to, and thus downplay, highly unconventional effects. Compared to the ludicrous nonsense spewed by Dr. S.E. Jones, Khalezov's views seem to require fewer leaps of faith, and violate fewer laws of physics, or at least violate them by fewer orders of magnitude. Still, both are nonsense. At least Khalezov's theory remains testable (fused bedrock would still be radioactive), if one can just obtain a coring sample from one of the right spots hundreds of feet below the WTC.
Meanwhile, we do not believe it. For one thing, evidence of large chunks of exterior tower walls, trailing roilimg plumes of particles as they fell from great heights, while the exterior walls and support columns closer to the ground still remained intact, is consistent with extremely intense energy having been (first) released far above ground level, contrary to Khalezov's nebulous energy-transmitted-via-solids underground-A-bomb theory. For another, the critical WTC "tub", which kept (and still keeps) the below-sea-level portions of the WTC dry, would likely not have survived intact, if at all, 3 such underground detonations, which supposedly somehow "pulverized" [sic] the structures (and all the contents?) of the twin towers (and WTC7), to heights far above ground level...
In terms of physics and overall content and its presentation, we find there to be a striking serious lack of coherence and credibility to the alternative-explanation 9/11 thoughts espoused in that Dimitri Khalezov video.
|At 18:54 on 02/08/12, Ed Anderson from Portland, OR added:|
|At 19:32 on 05/03/12, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
All traditional accredited "universities" and most if not all PhD physicists (among many disciplines) have long omitted vital information, which is why there is a need for 911U, and why it exists. We wonder how many deeply-in-debt college graduates understand, for example, that thermonuclear devices can be made to be non-radioactive and relatively tiny (and are thus potentially extremely beneficial and useful for creating clean inexpensive energy, shhhhh!), or that there are 4 -- not just 3 -- states of matter, or...
|At 08:44 on 03/10/12, Ed Ward, MD from Weblog of US Tyranny added:|
Proven 9-11 Nukes = US Government Involvement http://edwardmd.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/proven-9-11-nukes-us-government-involvement/
|At 19:35 on 05/03/12, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
|At 13:33 on 05/10/12, lb from Utah added:|
|At 13:06 on 03/20/13, Bhaktidev from USA added:|
I studied all Dimitri Khalezov's videos and read his book; I am going with "Physics Professor" on this one.
Dr. Judy Wood's site has an amazing catalogue of photos of 9/11, and she has helped spread the understanding of the fact that the bulk of the mass of those buildings did indeed go "poof". The fact that she chooses not to comment at this site is telling.
Thank you again for your stellar contributions to the spreading of truth and understanding of this oh-so-important topic. May truth prevail....
|At 21:05 on 04/06/13, G Griffith from Encinitas,CA added:|
|At 01:45 on 04/07/13, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
We probably should also consider what benefit such energy technology could have on national energy policy, if only more people were aware of even the possibility...
|At 13:20 on 05/24/13, Jerry Russell from 911-Strike added:|
Thanks for the wonderful work....
|At 21:26 on 07/19/13, Thomas Jefferson Adams from 173.70.24.** added:|
|At 20:14 on 08/30/13, Donald Stahl from The St. Louis 9/11 Questions Meetup Group added:|
|At 01:37 on 09/10/13, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
We are unaware of any evidence whatsoever of widespread molecular dissociation having occurred during "the Sandia airplane-on-a-rocket-sled" crash, which involved a high (480 mph) but not unconventional level of kinetic energy, where kinetic/mechanical processes, including crushing and pulverization, predominated. We've found no images showing relatively large objects moving relatively slowly through the air, trailing roiling plumes of particles (appearing similar to slightly soft-looking, narrow, briefly expanding pyro flows), skywriting parabolas, as seen accompanying nuclear detonations.
In other words, the objects and particles seen flying in virtually straight lines from the Sandia impact had far more kinetic energy than thermal energy. The reverse is true of objects which disintegrate while relatively slowly arcing through the air.
Further, note that most of the flying chunks of the WTC, such as the exterior walls, that left roiling plumes of particles trailing behind them, were somewhat off-axis!
The "lead of the pencil" center along the vertical axis of the towers was much hotter -- so unimaginably intensely hot that disintegration was nearly total and virtually intantaneous, thus relatively few chunks were ejected from that region; there was merely a large dense vertical cylinder of particles briefly remaining along the axis, where the interior of the tower had been:
|At 05:10 on 01/13/14, Timothy Julian from Colchester added:|
|At 02:11 on 01/14/14, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
As for short-lived heat, well, yes and no:
YES! - when unimaginably intense heat reduces matter to loose atoms, they tend to give up their intense energy to their surroundings quite rapidly, unlike blobs of still-molten magma temporarily suspended in a pyprocastlic debris flow resulting from a volcanic eruption. Nor were victims inside the tower "burned alive"; they were instantaneously reduced to loose atoms and fragments of molecules, as per the briefly remaining column of such particles in the image just above your post.
NO! - ""Ground Zero"" "hot spots" persisted for months (despite being doused with water by FDNY), and -- for all you coincidence theorists out there -- unprecedentedly fine nanoparticles were detected in down-wind particle plume samples for just as long as these widely-unknown sources of intense energy persisted.
|At 12:50 on 05/23/14, Jim from Oregon added:|
A recent article I saw suggested the so-called "nano-thermite" supposedly found actually is a by-product of the nuclear detonations, themselves.
Thus, the Jones angle becomes more clear:
Take a significant piece of evidence for nuclear detonation, i.e., a nuclear detonation by-product, the so-called "nano-thermite", and relabel it as evidence of non-nuclear demolition, thus killing two birds with one stone: Hiding in plain sight a smoking gun of nuclear detonation and using the "nano-thermite" explosive claim as disinformation.
Question, is the article's claim reasonably possible that the so-called "nano-thermite" is in actuality a by-product of nuclear detonation?
|At 17:40 on 05/31/14, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
Indeed, part of Jones' disinfo fog is to conflate causes and effects of (the significance of) nanoparticles.
The most salient knowledge to recognizing what happened at ""Ground Zero"" is that, at temperatures hotter than the surface of the Sun, covalent molecular bonds fail, causing molecules to fall apart (iow, dissociate, disintegrate), resulting in (IOW, CAUSING) nanoparticles.
The most incisive point is this: whenever an aluminum-clad steel skyscraper is nuked, finding nanoparticles of iron and aluminum left behind is to be expected!
DoE/911truth disinformer Steven E. Jones does not want people to even consider the possibility that fissionless nuclear fusion devices could have caused such elevated temperatures.
Speaking of hiding in plain sight: If (as Jones claims) nano-thermite caused the towers to have been (as Jones illogically denies) micro-nuked, then perhaps nano-thermite was involved -- in helping elevate the dozens of tiny fusion fuel pellets to a temperature (iow, energy level) near where fusion could commence, requiring the addition of only a well-timed well-aimed well-focused pulse from a relatively small laser in order to trigger a smallish directional detonation of nuclear fusion.
|At 14:55 on 10/28/14, Lauren Peot from Englewood, CO added:|
|At 12:52 on 04/08/15, Homosaps from homosaps added:|
|At 13:35 on 05/01/15, Scott McGillivray from Vancouver, BC added:|
|At 06:20 on 07/26/15, Mark from Oak Ridge, TN added:|
The term "thermonuclear" was invented for H-bombs (fusion devices), even though A-bombs (fission devices) were clearly both hot and nuclear. Fusion reactions can be SO intense that surrounding matter is annihilated, which means there's a deficit of remaining solid or liquid or even gaseous medium near the detonation to physically transmit a traditional explosion shock wave. The shock wave that does propagate is thus a faint shadow of a thermonuclear device's total energy output.
A tiny fusion device will produce a tiny shock wave, even though it can emit a large amount of energy, by producing a tiny amount of extremely intense energy.
|At 18:54 on 06/20/16, Al from NY, NY added:|
|At 01:39 on 06/23/16, Physics Professor from 911U Physics Dept added:|
Evidence that a fission component would have been an unnecessary complication is the fact that while nanoparticles were present in the down-wind particle plume for as long -- 99 days! -- as the ""Ground Zero"" hot spots persisted, radioactivity was not.
Why are so many people so resistant to the evidence, and to 21st century thinking(/reality), regarding the possibility(/reality) of clean hot pure fusion nuclear energy?
54 comments displayed
Add a worthy comment of your own: