Public Domain Software

“All for one, and one for all,” mights just as well be the motto of the Free Software Movement. The opportunity exists for an exponential payoff when implementing information technology during the Obama administration that will produce a lasting affect. The free software philosophy offers a third alternative to the traditional mix of public and private interests.

The drawbacks of a completely public effort are taxpayer expense, limited resources, and bureaucratic obstacles. The drawbacks of a completely private effort is pay for access, and a closed interface. Neither public nor private approaches provide a truly open interface. In the proprietary software sector software is treated as goods, not as a service. In the free software community software is treated as a service, not as goods. In the free software community programmers get paid by the job, as a service, but the software product becomes public domain. This allows free software to build upon itself, like public domain, peer review science.

By adopting public licenses government agencies can provide the data and interfaces while relying on the free software community to write software that interpret the data. Consumers of public data can range from think tanks and the media, to public agencies and private citizens, but the software must become public domain, so facts can be double checked. With free software, errors of interpretation can be exposed, and bugs fixed, as in public domain, peer review science. Then new software can build upon the old, introducing a multiplier effect and a model for public domain openness and efficiency.

9/11 Dr. Judy Wood Review

George Bush and Dr. Judy Wood both misdiagnosed the pathogens responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center twin towers, however Dr. Wood does deserve tremendous credit for her courage in collecting and classifying intriguing evidence dismissed or ignored by mainstream investigators. Let's review the case presented by Dr. Wood and consider a natural, albeit rare, phenomenon that is consistent with her findings of molecular dissociation, but does not involve any Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) pathogen.

Traditional explanations fail to address the apparent phenomenon of molecular dissociation identified by Dr. Wood. However, if I am correct, the only non al-Qaeda conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks is a de facto one resulting from the groupthink practices employed by mainstream science and pseudoscience alike that reject contrary evidence and interpretations outright. Revolutionary science proposes a natural, albeit rare, phenomenon as the pathogen responsible for molecular dissociation, while exposing a systemic failure of the scientific method and of practitioners thereof.

Dr. Wood's continuing investigation adheres to the scientific method, as mainstream efforts focused on treating the symptoms of the twin towers aftermath, while a reputable diagnosis of the disease has escaped identification until now. Was this a conspiracy, something akin to medical malpractice, or simply treating the symptoms of an unidentified disease with no known cure? I accept Dr. Wood's diagnosis of molecular dissociation, but her Directed Energy Weapon pathogen borders on the brink of nonsense. So I present a sensible alternative that is consistent with the symptoms and explains her molecular dissociation conclusion.

In addition, the pathogen I propose also has implications for explaining the present conditions on the planet Mars, where evidence for water exists absent the presence of water, and dust storms obscure large parts of the planet surface for extended periods of time. A Directed Energy Weapon did not create current conditions on Mars. A meteor impact did. The dust created by the twin towers incident also resembles the pumice residue from the eruption of Mount St. Helens. The coincidences between these rare events begs for a universally acceptable, natural explanation. Dr. Wood identified another rare event that also belongs in this group: Hiroshima.

Dr. Wood presented an interesting but misleading analogy, when she likened the twin towers to trees. A tree with a hole in the side does not fall down, as the twin towers did. Although true, the analogy ends there. Where the towers as trees analogy fails is when we consider what conventional wisdom dictates should have happened after the airplanes struck the twin towers. Investigators paid to reverse engineer the disaster concluded that the impact of the airplanes blew insulation off the floor supports. The airplane fuel fires then weakened the floor supports to the point where floors immediately above the fires broke loose and plummeted down slamming into lower floors.

What should have happened according to conventional wisdom after that? The force with which lower floors were hit by collapsing floors from above sheared the bolts holding the floor supports to the primary support columns. In the case of the twin towers the primary support columns were located on the exterior of the skyscrapers, like the bark on a tree. All the floors below, and including the floors weakened by blown off insulation and fire, should have cascaded down the shaft inside the exterior shell and smashed into rubble at bottom, like an elevator in free fall plummeting down an elevator shaft and hitting bottom. Between the floors, compressed air should have blow out the windows to escape, ejecting material like paper and dust in the process.

The final disposition of the twin towers should have been a hollow space between the impact points and rubble at the bottom, where the lower floors were located prior to the incident, and confined between the shell of still standing exterior support columns. Floors above the impact should have remained intact, with a hollow core in between, resembling an empty cardboard box sealed at the top and bottom, or rather a cage since all the windows were blown out leaving holes in the exterior. The distance from the impact points to the bottom is shorter than from top to ground. The discrepancy forwarded between the timing of gravity and the rate of "collapse" incorrectly assumes the top to bottom distance.

However, in the final analysis trees do not act this way, because the wood inside a tree is the primary support column, not the bark. But the inconsistent disposition of the twin towers refutes this scenario. Dr. Wood was on to something, but she never arrived at a universally acceptable solution, which is what I have to offer.

Dr. Wood presented her evidence and conclusions at conferences that were recorded in the following videos.

9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 1 - Dr. Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007


9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr. Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007


Judy Wood - 9/11 Search for Truth

Misdiagnoses: Directed Energy Weapon

Based upon the evidence she collected, Dr. Wood concluded that the World Trade Center twin towers were destroyed by some force leading to molecular dissociation. Dr. Wood claims that after all other explanations are evaluated and rejected only a Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) pathogen remains.

This is a bold statement that can never be proved, without a factual admission of guilt and supporting evidence. Using the scientific method a theory can never be proved only falsified. To expose the logical fallacy of a single explanation hypothesis we need only devise a rival explanation for molecular dissociation. Below I present a rival explanation that is consistent with the evidence and comprehensive in its ability to explain the affects and aftereffects, thus calling into question Dr. Wood's Directed Energy Weapon conclusion.

A Natural Molecular Dissociation Pathogen

To arrive at a natural explanation, we need to go back to basic principles. The organization of electrostatic bonds is what distinguishes the four states of matter from each other, i.e. solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. In a solid the molecules share electrons. In a liquid and gas the molecules do not share electrons. In a liquid like water the molecules are electric dipoles and when aligned properly the opposite polarity of nearby molecules attract each other. In a gas the molecules repel each other, because all the orbitals are full of unshared electrons. In a plasma the atomic nucleus and electrons are separate ions.

The differences between the concrete slab floors of the World Trade Center before and after slamming into each other include surface area, electron sharing, and the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. The tremendous amount of released energy concentrated on ripping the molecular bonds of concrete asunder. Once the floors cracked the electrostatic force properties along the fissures changed drastically into an electron deficit along the newly exposed surface area. Confined in space and time this electron deficit triggered a runaway chain reaction, where newly formed positive ions shanghaied electrons away from atoms with weak electric bonds, like hydrogen and metals. The result was molecular dissociation of solids composed of these elements, like steel beams, and concrete which contains the metal calcium. Solids disintegrated into smaller and smaller particulates, which added to a growing positive ion particulate cloud. Positive ions repel each other which caused the cloud to expand. This is what we observed in the twin towers' destruction.

Paper does not conduct electricity well. Consequently, paper and trees survived unscathed, whereas structural beams, cement, rebar, wires, and cars did not. When electrons are shanghaied from metal, individual atomic nuclei become positive ions and repel other positive ions. The metal disintegrated through a process of molecular dissociation, and the positive ion cloud intensified in concentration with this additional matter. No external source of energy was ever required. Lacking a supplemental source of electrons the positive ion cloud continued to grow and propagate on its own.

When concentrated ionic dust landed on buildings or pavement it ate a hole in the structures expanding a gaping wound from the inside out, like a molecular acid reminiscent of the corrosive alien blood from the Alien sci-fi film series. Solids disintegrated and increased the ratio of positive ions. Since solids share electrons, the positive charge of protons outnumber the negative charge of electrons in solids. The positive ions repelled each other and produced the fuming effect. Parts of buildings disintegrated into positive ion fumes.

Not all the dust settled to the ground. Instead the cloud went up because the positive ions repelled each other. At the level of protons and electrons, the electrostatic force dominates the gravitational force by orders of magnitude in the range of ten to the thirty-sixth, or a billion times a billion times a billion times a billion. When ionic dust came into contact with bare metal, electrons were shanghaied from the metal atoms, which changed the composition of alloys and promoted rapid oxidation. Metal beams disintegrated and rusted, engine blocks and door handles disintegrated, cars bodies rusted, the metal in steel toed boots disintegrated. Glass is primarily silica, but glass contains trace elements of metals. Thus, car windows also suffered from contact with the dust cloud. Circular holes appeared in nearby streets, buildings, and building windows.

Fire is oxidation. Cold fire is oxidation with low or no heat. Positive metal ions shanghaied electrons from water to combine with oxygen and discard the weakest molecular bonding element, hydrogen. Oxygen combining with metal ions appeared as cold fire, while nearby paper did not burn.

The twin towers construction allowed the floors to pancake like a piston inside a cylinder. The release of tension in the concrete slab floors allowed the concrete to crumble. The extraordinary result was a runaway chain reaction due to the disproportional electrostatic composition of solids, where positive charge of protons in atomic nuclei outnumber the negative charge of molecular bond electrons. Any exposed metal atoms the ion cloud came into contact with suffered shanghaied electrons resulting in molecular dissociation, which added more positive ions to the positive ion cloud as the runaway chain reaction continued.

Martian Evidence

Phil James (Univ. Toledo), Todd Clancy (Space Science Inst., Boulder, CO), Steve Lee (Univ. Colorado), and NASA/ESA
Long ago a large object impacted the planet Mars. The surface of Mars was vaporized at the point of impact. Some Martian rocks were even ejected into space, coming to rest on the glaciers of Antarctica to be recovered by Earth scientists. However, converting solid rock into airborne debris creates a runaway chain reaction in the form of a positive ion cloud of particles. When this dust landed on the waterways of that ancient water world, metal ions shanghaied electrons from water, released hydrogen protons into the atmosphere, and became rust particles, transforming the exposed surface into a red planet, while ridding the surface of water. Dust, dust everywhere, but not a drop of water remains to drink.

Mount St. Helens Evidence

USGS Photograph taken on May 18, 1980, by Donald A. Swanson
The ash that fell on Eastern Washington and other points downwind of the eruption of Mount St. Helens resembled the fine particulate dust created by the destruction of the twin towers and presumably on Mars too. A runaway chain reaction of a positive ion cloud would render chunks of solid matter into a fine particulate dust. The recorded observations about volcano eruption columns and pyroclastic flows is consistent with the electrostatic repulsion of positive ion particulate matter. The tallest known volcano in the solar system is Olympus Mons on the planet Mars.

Hiroshima Evidence

The energy released by nuclear weapons rips solid matter asunder. The runaway chain reaction of shanghaied electrons generates an expanding positive ion cloud until subatomic particle electric charge neutrality is restored. The force of the initial blast from a nuclear weapon is amplified by the expanding positive ion cloud of particulate matter it generates. The ground looks rusty in this color photograph from msn encarta.

Scientific Method Assessment

Repeatability is a major tenet of the scientific method. Knocking down other skyscrapers is not a viable option. The unique construction of the twin towers with primary structural support displaced to the exterior of the buildings made the twin towers susceptible to this catastrophe, whereas buildings with internal structural support may prove immune by diluting any catastrophic failure in time and space.

Where the scientific and engineering communities failed was in relying on known pathogens to diagnose a rare event, thus fueling theories about misdeeds and a government conspiracy. Toxic side effects continue to linger, because the phenomena produced in the destruction of the twin towers has not been well understood. Dr. Wood proposed an external pathogen in Directed Energy Weapons as the probable cause for the symptoms she cataloged, since her research followed standard operating procedure and only pointed in that direction.

Revolutionary Science Assessment

The contributions provided by Revolutionary Science come from working problems backward, where thought experiments lead to hypotheses, which serve as the basis for sifting through recorded data to find supporting evidence. When I considered the principles underlying molecular dissociation from the standpoint of ripping the molecules of a solid asunder, I determined that the result would be a runaway chain reaction converting solid matter into an expanding positive ion cloud of ever smaller particulates and subsequent chemical reactions like the oxidation of metal ions with water. That made me recall not only Dr. Wood's evidence concerning the destruction of the twin towers, but current conditions on Mars. The symptoms of both events proved consistent with my thought experiment concerning molecular dissociation. The luxury afforded by Revolutionary Science results from explanations born from a standpoint of internal consistency.

Health Hazard Implications

Now that we have a scientific hypothesis, architectural symptoms can be tested, and medical symptoms can be treated. Most of the evidence from the destruction of the World Trade Center has been removed and destroyed. However, the positive ion cloud hypothesis raises continuing hazardous implications. The structural integrity of buildings in the vicinity must be evaluated. The ionic cloud may have corroded structural beams. Also, the positive ions present a clear avenue of investigation into health problems suffered as a result of the incident, and possible treatment options may derive from a better understanding of what really happened.

For greater detail read my blog post: 9/11 Hutchison Effect Review.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental insight that exposes the inherent limitations of human understanding and knowledge at the subatomic level. As a simple analogy, imaging a video of a bouncing ball. When we play the video we see the motion of the ball, but when we pause the video, at any given moment, we see the position of the ball in a stop frame. Motion and position cannot be seen simultaneously, since the accurate measurement of motion and position are mutually exclusive, the same as they are in a video. In fact, at the subatomic level the more precisely we try to measure one the less precisely we can measure the other.

Popular representations of the Uncertainty Principle that incorporate the “observer effect” are disingenuous. No observer can exist at the subatomic level. Only measurements can be made, and any object being measured cannot be isolated from the act of measurement nor its surrounding environment.

Let's devise a popularized account of the Uncertainty Principle that eliminates this misrepresentation. However, instead of imagining ourselves as an observer at the subatomic level, which is problematic, let's imagine the subatomic level enlarged to our size, where we must lose our normal senses that do not exist at the subatomic level. It's easy to imaging a bouncing basketball. The basketball is being dribbled up and down, but in the subatomic context we cannot see it, hear it, or feel any vibrations in the floor or through the air. We cannot observe it, but we can measure either its position or its motion or both with innate limitations as to accuracy.

To do this we need to ricochet something off the basketball. A tennis ball will do, but again in the subatomic context we cannot see the tennis ball either. We can only detect when and where the tennis ball lands. We also know the path of the tennis ball, its initial speed, and when and where it started. To do this, a machine launches a tennis ball and it passes through the path of the basketball. The paths of both balls intersect, and we can measure the amount of time that the tennis ball spends within the path of the basketball. The higher the speed of the tennis ball, the greater the precision we can measure the position of the basketball. However, when the two collide, the tennis ball knocks the basketball so hard that the dribble gets interrupted.

By slowing down the speed of the tennis ball, the less the dribble gets interrupted and we are able to calculate more about the motion of the basketball, but as we do this we sacrifice information about the position of the basketball. To detect where the tennis ball lands, we will employ another analogy in our world. To see the result, we will use a digital camera with a variable exposure time. A fast exposure amounts to the fast tennis ball, whereas a slow exposure amounts to a slow tennis ball.

A fast exposure takes a crisp picture of the basketball, revealing greater accuracy in position, but less information about motion. A slow exposure takes a blurred picture, revealing greater information about motion, but less accuracy about position, as represented in these two images.

Position		Motion

Primordial Construct: Rules of Reason

Four productive methods of reasoning exist: deductive, inductive, abductive, and analogy. Fallacious reasoning also exists, but we won’t consider that here. For consistency of form let's refer to analogy by the term associative, then we have the following Primordial Construct that governs the rules of reason.

Retrospective «	Perspective Δ	Prospective »
	Associative N	Objective ↑
Deductive –	Adaptive/Manipulative ≈	Inductive +
Subjective ↓	Abductive $

Retrospective « Rule↔Cause→Effect	Perspective Δ Rule↔Cause→Effect	Prospective » Rule↔Cause→Effect
	Associative N Rule	Objective ↑ Rule↔Cause→Effect
Deductive – Cause	Adaptive/Manipulative ≈ Rule↔Cause→Effect	Inductive + Cause
Subjective ↓ Rule↔Cause→Effect	Abductive $ Effect

Reasoning	Given	Recall	Infer	Practitioners
– deductive	Δ Cause	« Rule	» Effect	mathematicians, scientists
$ abductive	Δ Effect	« Cause	» Cause	detectives, diagnosticians
+ inductive	Δ Cause	« Effect	» Rule	lawyers, artists
N associative	Δ Rule	« Cause	» Cause	preachers, politicians
≈ inference	Rule↔Cause→Effect			teachers, negotiators

Deductive Reasoning

For deductive reasoning a given perspective cause lead us to recall a retrospective rule to infer a prospective effect. For example, given the cause of two plus two a mathematician recalls the addition rule with an effect of four. Scientists use a toolkit of known rules to explain cause and effect relationships. For instance, the classification scheme for living organisms is know as a taxonomy. Rules govern the taxonomy. Giving live birth infers a mammal, the cause and effect of deductive reasoning.

Abductive Reasoning

For abductive reasoning a given perspective effect lead us to recall a retrospective cause to infer a prospective cause. Given the effect of a victim detectives determine the general cause and then try to find the specific cause: Who done it. Diagnosticians are trained professionals like doctors or computer technicians. Given the effect of symptoms a specific cause is sought based upon known causes that produce similar effects.

Inductive Reasoning

For inductive reasoning a given perspective cause lead us to recall a retrospective effect to infer a prospective rule. Lawyers and artists use inductive reasoning, where a deliberate or accidental effect stimulus is produced in an attempt to elicit a sought after response in other people, where causes are keys that unlock access to the universal rule. In rare cases, scientists discover new rules. Isaac Newton took the effects of astronomical observations and discovered the rule of gravitation expressed as a mathematical equation, the same equation used by modern rocket scientists to navigate spacecraft around the solar system, but discovery is more an art than a science.

Associative Reasoning

For associative reasoning a given perspective rule lead us to recall a retrospective cause to infer a prospective cause. Preachers and politicians use analogies to link one cause to another cause: parables that describe moral lessons of life, or guilt by association.

Inferential Reasoning

The goal of inferential reasoning is to establish common sets of rules, causes, and effects. Teachers and negotiators try to lead the way to common ground through inference to the best possible explanation.

To be effective, all the reasoning methods combined must support an unequivocally true conclusion.