by Scott Creighton
BYU’s “nanothermite” distraction is finally doing what it was designed to do: implode on itself leaving the Truth movement scrambling for a new hypothesis to get behind. Some guy has finally said that “nanothermite” isn’t a high explosive and it could not have “blown up” the Twin Towers. Funny. I’ve been writing that very same thing for years.
But while all of this is going on, Dwain Deets pops back up going all “Simple Jack” on us backing any stupid demolition theory that was ever made to make us look like idiots. Dwain seems to have forgotten that famous advice from Tropic Thunder “never go full retard”
You will notice in Steven Jones’ new paper, that he isn’t capable of producing an estimate for the detonation velocity of the “thermitic material” he is studying. That’s odd isn’t it? Because detonation velocity is very important in this application; demolition. Scott Creighton, April 2009
As early as April 2009 I wrote in response to Jim Hoffman’s ludicrous “nanothermite” demolition scenario that they had no idea if this material was even a high explosive and as such they couldn’t even prove that it could blow up a dog house, much less take out the Twin Towers.
Since May of 2008 I had been suggesting that det cord filled with PETN, a high explosive commonly used in the demolition industry, was more than likely utilized in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
PETN has a detonation velocity of 8,400 meters per second and when it ignites it burns at a temperature of over 8,100 degrees F. (the surface of the sun is just over 9,700) well over the temperature required to melt structural steel and with a shock wave more than sufficient to pulverize the floor systems of the Twin Towers as we all saw on Sept. 11th (relative effectiveness factor of 1.66,). Considering the fact that that 3 controlled demolition teams were on site when the Twin Towers collapsed on Sept. 11th 2001, I would say this det cord, one of the primary tools of their trade, is probably a good place to start looking for answers.
Considering all of this information, the fact that PETN det cord could have produced all of the visual and scientific results we have found since 9/11 and the fact that det cord is commonly used by the controlled demolition industry, I suggested that Steven Jones and the Truth movement get behind a push to test the Ground Zero dust they already had for high explosive residue. PETN residue would be easily detected in the dust from Ground Zero. Jones and Gregg Roberts disagreed with me. As of this date, no organization, not the USGS, not FEMA, not NIST, not the 9/11 Commission, and not Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have run the one test, the first test they all should have run in a thorough investigation: the test to see if high explosive residue is present in the dust from Ground Zero. This is what Gregg Roberts told me about it:
“However, our detractors could be counted on to do their best to use a negative result against us for P.R. purposes. They would say that we have a non-scientific belief, since a negative outcome from an experiment fails to shake it. Thus, the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered.” Roberts
They didn’t want to do actual residue tests used to determine if high explosives were used yet they did put a lot of money and time into creating the now thoroughly discredited “nanothermite” junk science. And yes, that is his original emoticon.
Notice what Roberts says there: “the potential costs of doing what you’re proposing and coming up empty-handed, or worse, must be considered“??? Or worse? Could there be a worse result for Mr. Roberts than a negative result? Could that … be a positive result? There are only two results possible: positive for high explosive residue and negative for high explosive residue. Is that what his little winking emoticon was trying to tell me? (wink wink) That a positive result would be worse than a negative one? (wink) Worse for who? The government? (wink wink wink) CDI? (wink wink) Makes you wonder, don’t it?
But all of that is ancient history. Now some guy has come along and said that the “nanothermite” theory is crap because they can’t show where it burns at a fast enough velocity to create a detonation wave.
So now here comes Dwain Deets and Jim Fetzer to offer up some “rational” suggestions since “nanothermite” has finally bitten the dust. What do they come up with? Do they think to run tests on the dust for high explosive residues? Do they go back and look to see if anything commonly used in the controlled demolition industry could have created the results we already know?
They do what BYU’s Steven Jones did a year or so ago and they dust off the “dustification Lady” Judy Wood and the ever popular “ray beams from space” bullshit. And just for good measure, they toss in “mini-nukes” and “plasmoids” just for the fun of it.
Remember Dwain Deets is the father of the modern drone. This is what I wrote about Deets a year and a half ago (also read Strange Bedfellows: AE911Truth, the Drone Industry, and Dwain Deets ):
Dwain Deets, former head of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center from 1996, who spent his career helping to develop remote piloting systems for aircrafts and then helped develop drone aircrafts like the Global Hawk, the Altus, and the Predator, has been deeply involved in the Truth movement for the past couple of years. Scott Creighton
Yes, that is right… Deets was involved with Dryden around the time they were developing and testing the Global Hawk drone. The Global Hawk has a wingspan roughly the same size as a 757-200 which is the type of passenger airliner that supposedly hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11th. At that time there were 7 Global Hawks in existence 2 of which were “out of commission” and one has been unaccounted for since. One witness described something that looked like a “humpback whale” hitting the Pentagon. Deets of course supports the “flyover theory”
Does that look kinda like a “humpbacked whale” … and who’s name is that on the screenshot?
Maybe this image will help clear things up a bit.
To be honest, Dwain Deets is probably on the level of some kind of genius. When you make a sarcastic joke about someone being a “rocket scientist”, Deets was actually a rocket scientist. Not only that, but he headed up the Dryden Center at NASA which means he was in charge of “rocket scientists”. You think he’s stupid enough to buy into Judy Wood’s obvious bullshit? Of course he isn’t. But there he is.
Deets gave a talk in San Diego back in Aug of last year in which he attempted to apply a kind of half-assed rating evaluation to what he called the remaining “alternative” theories of the demolition of Building 7. His conclusion was that it was either “ray beams from space” or “mini nukes” of some kind. This conclusion of his he based on the evidence of extremely high temperatures present during the demolition of the Towers and Building 7. He failed to mention PETN’s 8,100 deg F during his discussion.
Now Deets is getting together with a virtual who’s who of fake “truthers” in Vancouver for their yearly grab and giggle conference. Jim Fetzer will be there and if you remember him, he put together the “Scholars” at one time which boasted the talents of Judy “ray beams from space” Wood, Steven “nanothermite” Jones, and Morgan “tv fakery” Reynolds.
So now we can add Dwain “went full retard” Deets to the Fetzer’s Fakes stable. Dwain, here’s a little suggestion for you: don’t get caught up in this playing stupid thing. You could get stuck that way…