Thursday - 28 April 2016
A post I made to AJs 911 forum which seems to have been moderated out of existence.
Watching that video again the thing that impressed me most is the way the clouds of vapour poured out of a single face of Building 7. I know Dr Wood doesn't like the use of the word vapour because people confuse it with the word gas. To avoid confusion by people who have never heard of a phase diagram she prefers, quite sensibly, to use the neologism, dustification.
However, if we ever hope to understand the physics of what is taking place in Building 7 and the towers we have to get to grips with the mechanism of vaporisation, more specifically vaporisation at reduced electric potential pressures.
It's quite a few years since I published my discoveries of the three equations of state for water vapour on Professor Chaplin's web site. I've just now looked up the wiki on water vapour and it is evident that there has been a total inability to incorporate those discoveries into the existing canon.
That doesn't really surprise me since my discovery of the equation of state for liquid water (PV^6=a constant) based on Bridgman's data from the early 1900s has been totally ignored since it was first published at the Southampton University International Conference on Engineering Materials in 1968.
Funnily enough that was only a year after Prof Fleischman (of Cold Fusion fame - or infamy depending on your point of view) took up his Faraday professorship there.
To get back to the subject of WTC7, it seems to me that the dustification has to be arranged from within, not from without. Not, in other words, from some remote location such as a space satellite or Brookhaven.
Based on that view I also think that it was more probably that the two towers destruction was also brought about from devices placed within the towers by the crews that the thermalite crowd use to justify their explanation.
Did the hurricane have any connection with the towers then?
I doubt it.
I think it is an unnecessary distraction.
What about the Hutchison Effect. Is that relevant?
Absolutely! Couldn't be more relevant.
I think that is at the very heart of the matter.
In summary, I think talk of weapons is out of place - unless you consider a Hutchison Effect advanced demolition explosive a weapon.
I think the real explanation will prove to be more prosaic.
I suppose it's my own fault. One isn't supposed to criticise the doctrine according to Wood and in doubting the connection with the hurricane I did just that.
