The Cambridge University Press journal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
became an instant sensation by publishing target articles on specific,
well-defined subjects and inviting experts from around the world to post
critical commentaries about it, which has resulted in significant
advances in research. I suggest this new book about 9/11,
which has 15 contributors, might serve a similar purpose and thereby
similarly significantly advance 9/11 research. That provides a way to
circumvent the 9/11 Truth movement, which, like the JFK research
community, appears to have been massively infiltrated by the CIA. Here
are some of the important reasons to believe that we ought to adopt
that suggestion. The book is divided into 28 chapters, where the core
falls into 8 sections that, in reverse order, focus upon “9/11 Limited Hangouts”, “The Myth of Nanothermite”, “The 9/11 Crash Sites”, “The Pentagon: What didn’t Happen”,“New York was Nuked on 9/11”,“What happened on 9/11”, and “9/11: Who was responsible and why”, Parts I and II, with three chapters each. It has a Preface and a Prologue as well as an Epilogue and an Afterword with an Index. Softcover, 458 pages, 338 photos. $20 B&W; $30 COLOR.
There are three major groups in 9/11 research–A&E911, which supports the use of nanothermite and focuses on Building 7; Judy Wood and DEWs, which promotes Directed Energy Weapons and no planes theory; and Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which
advances the use of mini or micro nukes to blow apart the Twin Towers
and likewise contends that none of the official 9/11 aircraft actually
crashed on 9/11. The contributors explain why A&E911 is right about
Building 7 but wrong about nanothermite and why Judy Wood and DEWs is
right about no planes but wrong about DEWs. Here is my latest video
summary about the four 9/11 aircraft: Because
the arguments and evidence presented are specific and detailed, the
book facilitates a level of intellectual engagement that is missing from
most discussions about 9/11. In relation to nanothermite, for example,
three chapters explain that it is a law of materials science that, in
order for an explosive to blow apart a material, it must have a
detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that
material. The speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s; in steel, it is
6,100 m/s; but the highest detonation velocity attributed to
nanothermite in the scientific literature is only 895 m/s. And the three
chapters in the book that make these points were originally published
in 2011–more than 6 years ago! Here’s my latest on how the World Trade
Center was destroyed:
The Latest from A&E911
That
makes it obvious that those who want to defend the use of nanothermite
in the destruction of the Twin Towers need to explain what else was used to bring that effect about. While
it is certainly true that something else could have been added to make
it explosive, A&E911 has been reluctant to say what that something
else could have been. The same, of course, could be said of toothpaste,
which is also non-explosive but could be made explosive by adding an
explosive to it. After all these years, it is not unreasonable to expect
that A&E911 should have an answer to that question. But that does
not seem to be the case. Here is a report about the state of its research on 9/11, which has just appeared from the University of Alaska-Fairbanks about WTC-7 (aka “Building 7”):
This
is a splendid development, but it only confirms what Dan Rather
observed on television that day as he watched WTC-7 come down in a
classic controlled demolition, namely, that it reminded him of how we
have seen casinos and resorts taken down by planting dynamite at key
locations to destroy them. This case, as the University of
Alaska-Fairbanks reports, was a classic controlled demolition, with all
the support column blow out at the same time and the building coming
down perfectly symmetrically as planned, insuring that there would be no
collateral damage to other structures in the vicinity, which they did
not want to damage.
Judy Wood and DEWs
Indeed,
some might be tempted to argue that the earlier article covered more
ground that the latest from A&E911. But Judy Wood and DEWs have not
been doing any better. Consider, for example, that a review of her
book, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? (2010), which I originally published on 20 May 2012, was subsequently downgraded from 5-star to 3-star on
the basis of research presented during The Vancouver Hearings, which
were held in June 2012. It has been subject to attack around 7,500 times
now. But denouncing evidence of the use of nukes does not explain it
away, where Judy has displayed the unscientific attitude of ignoring it.
A scientist would instead take into account new evidence not previously
considered and adapt their theory appropriately by accepting hypotheses
that had been previously rejected, rejecting hypotheses previously
accepted, leaving others in suspense:
The
point is that the specificity of the arguments presented in this new
book make it possible to make advances by citing specific propositions
that are laid out in detail with the evidence supporting them, which
enables those who disagree to explain what we have wrong and how they
know. Otherwise, we are left in the muddle of having to deal with
distorted versions of those arguments, which do not come to grips with
the evidence and leaving issues hanging. That was exhibited perfectly
during the 9/11 Truth Teleconference on 31 August 2016, when Adam Ruff
and Wayne Costa challenged my explanation of how we know that this was a
nuclear event, which were nice illustrations of the point that I am
making here.
Demolitions Under Control
Compare the debris from WTC-7 (left) with that from WTC-1 (right), which should have been more than twice as high.
Indeed,
while it is appropriate to describe the destruction of WTC-7 as a
“controlled demolition”, it is not appropriate to use the same phrase
for the Twin Towers, which were “demolitions under control” but lacked
the characteristics of controlled demolitions. The reason for having to
have used a novel technique for their destruction appears to have been to protect the bathtub,
which was an enormous dike within which the towers were constructed to
protect them from Hudson River water. Had the bathtub been breached, it
would have flooded beneath lower Manhattan, the most valuable real
estate in the world, including the subway and PATH train tunnels, which
they wanted at all cost to avoid.
The
use of mini or micro nukes, which have dialable radii and can be
directed upward, means that the destruction of the Twin Towers qualified
as the use of “Directed Energy Weapons”, which, according to Judy Wood,
are devices that provide far more energy than conventional and can be
directed. Set at 100′ in the core columns, they would have had a
diameter of 200′ for buildings that were 208′ on a side. Their use
enabled the destruction of both buildings from the top down in an effort
to simulate collapse. But they were being blown apart in every
direction and converted into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.
And this appears to be how it was done as the US Geological Survey dust
studies substantiate.
Other
arguments could be made, of course, including that the final spire of
the North Tower seems to run counter to the use of nukes. But even at
Hiroshima, the scaffolding of a lone church remained after the enormous
blast had done its damage. And these were mini or micro nukes, whose use
has also been confirmed by the debilitating medical maladies incurred
by first responders and residents of the area, which include
non-Hodgkins lymphoma, leukemia, thyroid, pancreatic, brain, esophageal,
prostate and blood and plasma cancers at rates far above normal, which Jeff Prager was among the first to point out and where recent estimates have placed the number affected at close to 70,000.
For those who dispute characterizing A&E911 and Judy Wood and DEWs
as “limited hangouts”, the argument is straightforward. We have three
major problems to solve about 9/11: the WHO, the HOW and the WHY. Both
of those organizations only address the HOW and refuse to explain the
WHO or the WHY. That is simply absurd for 9/11 Truth organizations. And
even their explanations of HOW appear to be inadequate. Only Scholars
for 9/11 Truth addresses all three. AMERICA NUKED ON 9/11: Compliments of the CIA, the Neocons in the DOD and the Mossad (2016)
lays out the evidence in detail.But we make no claims to
infallibility–and the best test of the validity of our case is critical
attempts to refute it, which can be accomplished if we make this book
the target for scrutiny and criticism and thereby advance the cause of
exposing 9/11 Truth. If you have something to contribute, then submit it
to me and I will be very glad to consider it for publication here and
elsewhere. When we have a critical mass of discussion and debate, I will
edit another book to bring our knowledge and understanding of 9/11
further up-to-date.
Jim Fetzer, a
former Marine Corps officer, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the
University of Minnesota Duluth, the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth,
and the co-founder of moonrockbooks.com.
20
No comments:
Post a Comment