Friday, April 11, 2014

NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome"

Hide All / Expand All



x165 Maxwell C. Bridges : won't be buried so easily

2014-03-11

The nuclear theory won't be buried so easily, because so much of the evidence -- even that collected by Dr. Wood -- points in that direction.

What will be buried are preconceived notions and deliberate mal-framing (e.g., Dimitri K.) of nuclear devices.

When I write things, I do it with the intent on re-purposing it one day. This aspect of legacy and standing up for my words changes how I write. This was true for my efforts on Facebook.

Just recently, I completed the task of re-purposing my Facebook efforts. And not a moment too soon. The beauty of a true debate forum is being able to reference what was written before, whereby new discussions that would run over the same topic again can be sent into a GOTO-fashion to a URL that addressed it the first time.

The following links address Ms. Norma Rae's point, and prove why nuclear means should not be taken off the table so quickly.

"late-3rd and early-adopter-4th generation nuclear weapons"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x156

"merged and not beaten over the head"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x152

"Carousel #2: game-playing cinches the deal"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x102

"Carousel #7: preconceived notions from the media on what "nukes" are"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x148

//

Hide All / Expand All


x166 Maxwell C. Bridges : glitches in video

2014-03-11

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

The technology of digital (and video) imagery and the technology of data transmission have their share of glitches. The issue with the disappearing wing relates to (1) the low resolution of the camera, (2) scanning techniques of the video camera, (3) compression artifacts in rendering and transmitting the image, and (4) artifacts of the image (e.g., smoke, sky reflecting off surfaces, building grid patterns).

The reasons I believe holograms were not used are:

(1) Two different sets of radar data received information from a flying aircraft. These radar sets agree with most of the videoed flight paths of the 2nd plane, as was proven by 3D modeling.

(2) The main proponent of holograms completely botched his analysis. "Rich Hall's purposeful mal-interpretations of the radar data"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x114

(3) Burning projectiles from the aircraft are observed after the airplane impact crashing out of the building, falling a parabolic arc to the ground (sometimes after damaging other other buildings.) Whereas one could argue that these objects were ~not~ from the alleged aircraft, nonetheless they were from some sort of real aircraft.

Look through Joshua Frozen's albums or the images I linked, because they clearly show how an airplane part (e.g., engine) could have traveled the path that it did to Murray and Church, after bouncing off a building. Study the images in the album.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1423831401195173/


"what strategic benefit would holograms have over airplanes?"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x133

//


x167 Maxwell C. Bridges : nuclear device under the bathtub

2014-03-11

A nuclear device under the bathtub -- as proposed by Dimitri -- is nonsense with regards to its ability to agree with the observable evidence. He can't even get his output yields from an underground nuke to effectively explain the pulverization of WTC tower structure from the earliest moments of its demise NEAR THE TOP. The pulverization is a huge energy sink and was not created by energies of a nuke "bubbling up the straw of the tower's structure".

Much disinformation will have a self-destruct mechanism. Its purpose is to take out of contention the foundation of truth that might undergird the disinformation theory. In Dimitri's case, I haven't really discovered much of a truth foundation, and view his participation both as a trick for personal gain and fame and as a ruse for the public to torpedo pre-maturely nuclear considerations.

To clear up the record, the bathtub was damaged, which contradicts Dr. Wood. However, its damage was not as extensive as others would lead you to believe.

The bathtub was ~not~ like a damn, holding back the Hudson River. No, it held back the water that saturated the soil from the Hudson. Somewhere in the FB discussions, someone provided a link to how much actual flooding did happen, and it was on the order of 100 gallons a day. [And if I am mistaken and it was 100 gallons an hour, that is still small compared to the water they were dumping on top of the pile that would eventually trickle down -- when the hot-spots didn't turn it into steam.] The point is, what seeped in through the damaged bathtub was well within the means of established pumps to clear.

Ms. Norma Rae writes: "A nuclear device goes in all directions."

Doesn't have to. This was the whole point of my many postings about "neutron nuclear DEW", where its outputs yields are tailored and targeted, and no longer are even in the same league with the nukes that scared the world for half a century. This is also the whole point of 4th generation nuclear devices.

And Why can't I get a simple answer to why the bathtub didn't get turned to dust if it is in the path of destruction. Can you understand why I don't want to spend a lot of time digging thru links. Why is it so hard to get a cliff note answer?

Ms. Rae wrote: "Why can't I get a simple answer to why the bathtub didn't get turned to dust if it is in the path of destruction."

The bathtub was in the path of falling debris, but not necessarily in the path of destruction. The difference is that the latter assumes "an energetic driver" still at work.

The pulverization of much of the content may have been a design goal, as opposed to an accidental side-effect of overly thorough and redundant overkill. When viewed as such, then the reasons would include better control of these large structures as they come down and reduction of damage to other things, like the bathtub.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Can you understand why I don't want to spend a lot of time digging thru links."

No, I cannot. Taking the time to dig through links and read might actually benefit your understanding.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Why is it so hard to get a cliff note answer?"

Because if it is too short, you'll skip over it as being not meaty enough to be the true answer. More importantly, if it is too short, it won't have the nuances needed for meaningful understanding.

Gee, the cliff notes versions explain why you still crank the carousels on holograms and Dimitri's nukes.

Here's the non-Twitter versions:
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x152

or

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1423820681196245/

//


x168 Maxwell C. Bridges : explode on contact

2014-03-11

Dear Ms. Rae,

You wrote: "Even a drone or fighter jet would have exploded on contact with the perimeter structural steel columns."

No it wouldn't. In order to explode, it would have to have something explosive. The jet fuel didn't become a fire ball until it had separated from the wings and then reached by an ignition source. The fuselage had already severed bolts and pushed wall assemblies before the wings with fuel hit.

The outer wall assemblies -- the perimeter structural steel columns -- did not constitute a gapless, solid wall as depicted in your images that re-purposes things from the Sandia F4 test and various missile tests.

Ms. Rae wrote: "That engine on Murray & Church was planted there."

This isn't a fact. It is your concluding opinion, which comes about after side-stepping much evidence that proves it could have landed there.

Click on the photo album and view all images, not just the thumbnails that appears at this top link.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1423831401195173/

Ms. Rae wrote: "It is sitting under the scaffolding in an upright position."

So? Take a beer can, put some sand in it, toss it in the air, see how it lands. (Vary the tosses so some end-over-end come into play, or also that it might hit something on the way down, or that the toss had forward momentum, or that a curb would assist in uprighting it.) Sure, most of the time it will not come to rest upright. But there will be instances in your test set when it does come to rest upright.

Ms. Rae wrote: "There is no evidence of any crash physics with that location."

Would you know what the evidence looked like? How much of a dent in the pavement or crack in the concrete do you expect? How can you say that such damage wasn't there?

The engine itself looked pretty dinged up to me. It certainly wasn't going to be re-furbished and put back into service.

Ms. Rae wrote: "That 'engine' crashed somewhere else and was placed there. ... That engine on Murray & Church was planted there."

I'll use the same argument that I used against the September Clues Crew who were promoting that false meme "all video imagery was tainted." If they were going to go to the effort of faking all of the video imagery (or of planting an engine), then why didn't they do it right? Meaning, if the videos were faked, why not make them physics-compliant? Meaning, if the engine was planted, why didn't they plant one of the same make and model of the alleged aircraft?

//


x169 Maxwell C. Bridges : wings explode on contact

2014-03-11

Dear Ms. Rae,

You write: "The wings upon impact with the perimeter steel columns would have been sufficient for the explosion."

Why would they explode? What conditions are required for jet fuel to explode? Jet fuel is not as volatile as gasoline. Jet fuel has more in common with home heating oil than, say premium gasoline. It's similar to kerosene in density, viscosity and volatility. It ignites at a higher temperature than gasoline and releases fewer fumes.

When the wings of the aircraft sliced into and were sliced by the box columns of the wall assemblies, the jet fuel previously contained therein took the path of least resistance and continued largely in the direction of its momentum prior to impact. In other words, the fuel entered the towers.

The ignition source for hard-to-ignite jet / diesel fuel was likely the hot exhaust of the jet engines when they finally entered the towers. This is why the explosion was not on impact but after much of the plane had penetrated the towers.

Ms. Rae writes: "Try ramming your car against this [wall assembly] and tell me it wont explode."

Apple-and-oranges. My engine is in the front of my car, while the aircraft's engines were out to the sides and set back about half the length of the fuselage. My engine uses highly volatile gasoline, while the aircraft uses jet fuel. My car would be lucky to reach speeds 1/3 that of the aircraft, which is a significant reduction in the available energy to shatter the materials of the car or slice into columns.

//


x170 Maxwell C. Bridges : Anybody ready to bury the Nuclear Theory?

2014-03-12

Norma Rae
How did the nuke manage to miss the Bathtub? Nukes make holes. Anybody ready to bury the Nuclear Theory?
==============

Dear Ms. Rae,

You asked: "Where do you propose the device was located that caused the demise of the twin towers?"

Devices, Ms. Rae, 6 to 12 per tower. Let's say 12 for the sake of discussion. The top-most ones were probably in the computer rooms at, or right below, the "impact level," aimed upwards. About every tenth floor below that level had at least one device, aimed upwards, and possibly on alternating sides of what became known as the spire. If they alternated positions around the spire at each tenth floor, it would help reduce fracticide on the lower device by the detonation of the upper device.

Remember, if we consider these to be unique variants of neutron devices, they have a means of shucking off energy from the nuclear reaction by directing the highly energetic neutrons upwards. In this manner, other yields and side-effects of the detonation can be reduced to tactical levels, can be controlled better, and gives it the distinction of energy efficiencies in the 50% range. Fourth generation nuclear devices.

//


x171 Maxwell C. Bridges : thermal imaging report is ripe for having been manipulated

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Joy,

The various reports from NIST or sponsored by the government to supposedly thoroughly explain 9/11 have a track record of tricks and scientific sleight of hand. One example of such are the delays in measuring radiation,sufficient for the radiation of fusion devices to dissipate. Another example is the averaging of the 3 observed stages of WTC-7 demise together, so that they can proclaim with a straight face that the first 18 floors fell at an acceleration slower than free-fall, which is meant to hide the fact that stage 2 was indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration.

I embarrassed to say that the following is bat-shit crazy speculation without substantiation.

The thermal imaging report is ripe for having been manipulated. If I were to rescue a nugget of truth from the disinformation of September Clues and its "all imagery is tainted meme", it would be that the September 23, 2001 image of hot spots would be so easy to fake. And we can suspect that it was faked from the contradictory reports of those who worked the WTC scene.

I agree, though, that by September 23, many fires attributed to diesel fuel and office furnishings would have burned themselves out or been put out. But testimony of under-rubble hot-spots says that something else was at work.

I'm not sure how much masking of the thermal signature debris on top of the hot-spots could accomplish to get such a changed thermal mapping. As such, if a cover-up was to happen, faking the September 23, 2001 thermal image could go a long way. Even Dr. Wood picks it up and promotes it, and expresses doubt of even the existence of hot-spots and other things observed.

//


x172 Maxwell C. Bridges : scene setting quote

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Grage,

You wrote: "There are people all over the site before, after and during when these pictures are taken. I see them as fraud as you can't walk over 800F+ hot spots. How can you explain people and hot spots coexisting in the same location?"

I disagree with that assessment. People were not "all over the site before, after, and during when these pictures were taken." Here's a scene setting quote from Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia, a WTC responder and FEMA consultant.

+++ begin quote

They would tackle you and take your camera away. ... When we first got there, we were told where we could go and where we couldn't go. There were different places that you were not to go to. One of the things you were not to go to and they claimed it was for safety was down in the garages, the parking garages. They were very flooded. There were a lot of problems like that. All the apartments around there were all sealed off. A lot of things were very much sealed off. ... If you spoke to civilians, you actually were reprimanded by not being allowed to go back to the pile per hour, per occurrence. So if you talked to four people, they wouldn't say anything to you on the pile. But when you got back, to come back and got ready at the Port Authority, got showered, dressed and ready to return, they'd say, "Tartaglia, you have to hold up a second, we need to talk to you for a second." And then you would have nonsensical conversations for two or three hours. [Alex Jones: Now we know that by day two, they arrested anybody with cameras. They said no over-flights, no cameras.] First of all they didn't take cameras away from everybody. They took them away from people they couldn't control. ...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/300305newrevelations.htm
+++ end quote

Mr. Grage continues: "So if such hot spots existed, you'd expect to have visual warning, i.e. taped off areas, ..."

It can be hard for arm-chair theorists like myself to gauge the size of the WTC. This is one of the great things about Dr. Wood's book, because she collects images of the destruction and provides tables that reference map positions.

Owing to its size and that they had the operation under control with armed soldiers standing guard -- did you see the fleet of dump trucks arriving before the dust on day 1 had settled? -- I wouldn't expect them to be able to tape off some sections. Just too big. Easier to order workers: "Don't go there."

If September Clues has any nuggets of truth, it is that some amount of imagery manipulation did happen.

Mr. Grage wrote: "The dated pictures we can find seem arbitrary from different sources, same debris, etc."

Agreed. And not all of it might be authentic, and maybe was enhanced in some way.

//


x173 Norma Rae : classic Newtonian Physics works

2012-03-12

Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges The classic Newtonian Physics works here on earth when things travel at 500mph. Newton's theories cease to exist when you travel at the speed of light. Then you start using Einstein's theories.
15 hours ago · Edited · Like

Norma Rae The plane would have continued thru the glass windows, but the wings and fin would have been flung back when they struck the steel columns.
15 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Concrete is a lot less structurally sound than Steel and does not bode well when something crashes into it. So when you have the F4 Phantom Jet blowing up, we know that if it was ramming into steel columns it would blow up too. It would not have disappeared into the wall.
Norma Rae's photo.

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t1.0-9/p261x260/1098017_10200971898859910_83005444_n.jpg


15 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae When you watch football, they replay a clip so they can see what happened. That's the same thing we have with the planes. We couldn't see the details at normal speed but when slowed down it is blatant, that a plane could not have slipped it's way in the way they want us to believe it did.
15 hours ago · Like


x174 Maxwell C. Bridges : speed of light discussions

2014-03-12

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

You wrote: "The classic Newtonian Physics works here on earth when things travel at 500mph. Newton's theories cease to exist when you travel at the speed of light. Then you start using Einstein's theories."

No need to get into speed of light discussions.

Stop missing the point, Ms. Rae, which is energy. Over and over, your comments reflect an understanding of collision physics for velocities of up to, say, 150 mph, like from car crashes. The energies involved in such collisions will shatter the hell out of plastic components of the car, will deform metal, and will shear bolts & hinges holding the vehicle and its components together. If you were filming the event with a high speed camera, rapid deceleration will be observed.

If high speed footage were taken of the plane impacts, certainly they would show tiny amounts of deceleration that the existing footage can't capture. When the velocities increase to 500 mph (or ~3 x 150 mph), the available energy increases by almost 10 times. Metals and components that only deformed at lower energies can "deform into shatters" quickly at higher energies, too quick for slow-footage video to capture what is happening. The shattering effects isn't observed at lower velocities (except of the plastic), because the energy is insufficient.

Ms. Rae writes: "The plane would have continued thru the glass windows, but the wings and fin would have been flung back when they struck the steel columns."

No, not necessarily. Your statements about wings flinging back is another example of your understanding of physics with velocities much less than 160 mph. If the energies don't exceed the structural energies of the involved materials (of the wing), sure, the wing will deform but remain more or less a cohesive whole (or several cohesive parts). The connection with the fuselage might be the weak one, allowing the wings to shear off and bounce off the building.

However, velocities were greater and energy was greater. Plus, the wings were a cohesive whole just prior to impact. Portions of the wings meeting with the low resistance of window slits would help pull, guide, and steer portions of the wings meeting with the higher resistance of the wall assembly box columns. Even when that much higher impact energies result in localized "shattering" of the wing, (1) momentum, (2) "affinitity" with intact wing portions, and (3) the path of least resistance into the structure would help determine its final deflection vectors.

In order for the wings to get a deflection vector backwards (e.g., flung back), you can't have window slits offering zero resistance to the forward momentum over ~50% of the length of the wing.

The tail fin is a similar situation.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Concrete is a lot less structurally sound than Steel and does not bode well when something crashes into it. So when you have the F4 Phantom Jet blowing up, we know that if it was ramming into steel columns it would blow up too. It would not have disappeared into the wall."

Correction, Ms. Rae. The Sandia F4 Phantom Jet did ~not~ "blow up" when impacting the concrete wall that had no zero-resistance gaps except at the ends. No. The rapid deceleration exceeded the structural strengths of the materials present in the aircraft. The aircraft's materials were shattered into tiny pieces, whose deflection was largely orthogonal to the very sturdy concrete wall. It did not blow up. The aircraft didn't have any fuel; the rocket sled might have.

Ms. Rae wrote: "When you watch football, they replay a clip so they can see what happened. That's the same thing we have with the planes."

No, it is ~not~. Your statement is another example of what I'm complaining about in your understanding of physics with velocities much less than 160 mph.

In fact, the football game involves velocities on the order of 16 mph, and the cameras have a fast enough frame rate to be able to capture it and slow it down. Cameras with similar frame rates were used to film the aircraft's 500 mph velocity. Unlike the 16 mph football tackle, the camera does not have the resolution frame-to-frame to show us meaningful details for something happening ~30 times faster.


Ms. Rae wrote: "We couldn't see the details at normal speed but when slowed down it is blatant, that a plane could not have slipped it's way in the way they want us to believe it did."

This is insufficient. Do the math, Ms. Rae.

+++ begin quote
The human eye and its brain interface, the human visual system, can process 10 to 12 separate images per second. ... In the motion picture industry, where traditional film stock is used, the industry standard filming and projection formats are 24 frames per second (fps).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
+++ end quote

For example, object A is going 8 mph (e.g., football receiver) and object B is going 500 mph (e.g., jet over stadium). Assume that 1 second was captured by a camera orthogonal to the objects' direction of travel.


mph = [miles/hour] * (1/60) [hour/min] * (1/60) [min/sec] * (5280/1) [ft/mile]
mph = (5280/3600) [ft/second] = 1.46 [ft/sec]

Object A: 10 [mph] = (10 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 14.6 [ft/sec]
Object B: 500 [mph] = (500 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 730 [ft/sec]

- A receiver running 10 mph for 10 yards (30 ft) for the first down would take ~2 seconds, or 48 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 30 feet would take 0.041 seconds, or 0.98 frames.
- A receiver running 10 mph for 200 ft would take ~13 seconds, or 312 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 200 feet (e.g., length of 767-400ER) would take 0.27 seconds, or 6.57 frames.

The resolution per frame is vastly different between humans in a football game and a speeding aircraft. Slowing down the playback of the camera is not going to help. Only high-speed cameras of the event would be able to show clearly what was happening.

//


x175 Maxwell C. Bridges : complete lack of evidence that would support demolision

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You wrote: "The complete lack of evidence that would support demolision or nuke theories has been covered up an therefore proves those theories."

Very nice try at spinning.

First of all, there is tons of evidence that would support demolition. The pulverization that happened at gravitational acceleration is a glaring one. The energy sink of pulverization is another. The Uranium and correlation of elements in the dust are yet another.

Secondly, when you refer to the cover-up and its ability to suppress evidence, you ignore that the cover-up cuts both ways. By that I mean that what they rely on to state so confidently "no radiation therefore no nukes" is flawed. It does not decisively prove "no radiation." Moreover, the delays and unsystematic approach in measuring for radiation is a loop-hole big enough that you could explode a few dozen 4th generation nuclear devices in and be able to state with a straight face "no radiation."

One can point to the suppression of information as part of the cover-up. But there are ample examples of information getting out (like raw data, interviews, etc.) but where the official reports did not mention such data and/or did not attempt to make any analysis of it. There are ample examples of reports using a very curious limited set of samples, drawing dubious conclusions that might be somewhat valid for its limited scope, but then having its conclusions -- flaws and all -- deliberately extrapolated into a larger work where it doesn't apply or can't be the sole source. Surely this counts as a cover-up, too.

You wrote: "Everything put forward to support the official proposition is a fake."

This is your interpretation, but not my position at all. You don't have to tweak very much in order to steer. The tritium report re-defined trace/background levels. The reports on radiation had significant delays on when it was measured and ultimately used only 3 sets of samples, all from the East side. It didn't even mentioned what was measured or what the standard for trace/background level was.

It doesn't take much effort to photoshop a thermal image to get it to appear much cooler than it was. Only one image, and all sorts of faulty conclusions are made.

//


x176 Maxwell C. Bridges : don't seriously believe that a nuclear device

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard wrote:

"You dont seriously believe that a nuclear device brought down the WTC do you?"

I do ~not~ believe that "a nuclear device" destroyed the WTC.

I believe that multiple 4th-generation nuclear devices per tower destroyed the WTC.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1423820681196245/

//


x177 Maxwell C. Bridges : underneath the buildings

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

Your asked: "How do you suppose those devices got underneath the buildings, assuming you think they were under the buildings?"

It is the former Russian agent, Dimitri K., who believes that nuclear devices were under the buildings.

I do not.

The 4th generation nuclear devices that I am talking about expell most of their energy as highly energetic neutrons upwards to get them out of the way. This then reduces other output yields to tactical levels. More and more I'm leaning towards further tweaking and aiming of those remaining output yields (ala Project Excalibur and X-ray lasers).

For the sake of discussion, we could say 12 such devices per tower, therefore placed every 10 floors or so, possibly alternating which side of the spire they are mounted on.

Potential energy and gravity can't explain the pulverization of content so early in each towers' demise. It also doesn't explain the hot-spots that burned under the rubble until December. Shoots down the official story.

Chemical based explosives and incendiaries have several issues relating to the observed outcomes, as well as logistics hurdles. For instance, to achieve pulverization -- an observed outcome --, a certain quantity is required. As but one nugget of truth from NIST's Dr. Sunder, such quantities would be deafening at distances under 1/2 mile. Hearing loss is not one of the ailments of those survivors and witnesses. Another for instance is the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, which extrapolates to obscenely massive quantities of such explosives that would be ~UNSPENT~ from its original pulverizing purposes.

Tweaked nukes don't have to have this decibel issue, because they aren't necessarily destroying things with their blast waves. Even a couple of dozen per tower is less effort to install than the requisite amounts of chemical based devices, which in turn have to be snuck into the towers and placed in the scant few days that bomb-sniffing dogs took a holiday prior to 9/11.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html

//


x178 Maxwell C. Bridges : Who would want to put them there and why?

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You asked: "So how were 12 of these devices planted in these buildings without anyone noticing?"

Who says they weren't noticed? Tenants on other floors of the towers noted construction (sounds) on supposedly empty floor. Dusty desks and monitors proved some work was done overnight. One curious tenant took a peak at one of the floors supposedly prepping for a new tenant and notice nothing of the sort.

All tenants talk about weekends when there were power outages. Several hours existed between after the cleaning crews left each night and before the first tenants/employees arrive next morning.

You asked: "Who would want to put them there and why?"

Follow the money. The towers were asbestos white elephant whose cost to fix were exceeded revenue projections. Due to the asbestos, they couldn't be destroyed legally either. Insure them against terrorists attacks and then claim that each plane was a separate attack, you've uncovered one monetary motive out of many.

The vaults under WTC-4 contained unknown amounts of gold. After 9/11, some of the gold was recovered, but it wasn't in the vault. It was loaded in a tractor trailer truck that was left abandoned in underground garages.

WTC-7 had SEC records whose destruction aided the rich defendants in more than one case.

The Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion on 9/10. By 9/11, it didn't matter. The Office of Naval Intelligence, who was the only group to move into the renovated wing and who was investigating this, had all of its investigators and all of its records wiped out with the strike at the Pentagon.

The Black Eagle Fund (gold stolen from Jews by the Nazis) and the Marcus Fund (gold stolen from the Chinese by the Japanese) were found by the Americans but not repatriated with their rightful owners after WWII. Instead they were used to fund black ops. In the early 1990's, President G.H.W.Bush essentially took out a 10 year note against this gold and used it to bankrupt the Russian economy, buying up gas and oil concerns, etc. This note came due just after 9/11.

Under the pretense that the terrorist attacks destabilized the stock markets, when they re-opened the stock market, they relaxed certain controls that then laundered billions, including the aforementioned note. [As an aside, this money coming back into the system fueled the housing bubble. Under banking rules of partial reserve, the money coming into the system could be loaned out again many times over, which they did to even those who wouldn't normally qualify, which is why adjustable rate mortgages were devised with teaser interest rates that then went up and wiped out the fortunes of many normal people.] The put-options placed against the airlines involved in 9/11 -- although never collected -- is indicative of insider knowledge and a monetary motive.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) documented in 1999 what the neo-con's wanted, and it reads like a checklist for what they actually accomplished once they had stolen the White House in 2000. Control of oil and natural gas were part of the plan. Changing the reasons for why and how the US goes to war, permanent military presence in the Middle East, etc. were also part of the plan. This can be interpreted as war profiteering, of which Halliburton was pretty successful.

The bottom line is that a monetary motive lies behind the operation and answered the WHY.

Kevin Ryan's book "Another 19" is worth reading to learn more about the how.

//


x179 Maxwell C. Bridges : wildly inaccurate

2014-03-12

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You asked a question. I answered it. Now you're just splitting hairs and spinning it to your own benefit.

I wrote: "The towers were asbestos white elephant whose cost to fix were exceeded revenue projections"

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "This is not wildly inaccurate. The cost to remove or renovate would have been a fraction of what it cost Silverstein properties , having paid several billion dollars for the lease."

Nope, what you wrote, Mr. Aveyard, is "wildly inaccurate." Silverstein paid only $14 million of his own money for the lease, not billions. Even though he tried to get $3.55 billion coverage per event ($7.1 billion), his insurance payout was capped at $4.55 billion. Even if he pays back others in the venture ($3.2 billion), he's still got $1.3 billion in profit. Millions to billions is a big ROI.

+++ begin quote

Asbestos is a mineral, airborne fibers of which can cause severe and untreatable respiratory disease, with typical latencies of several decades. The recognition of the toxicity of asbestos has led to legislation for its survey and removal from structures. The removal is expensive because the removal operation must be quarantined and subject to rigorous decontamination procedures. Removal of asbestos used as structural fireproofing in steel framed high-rises is complicated by the fact that the fireproofing covers an intricate lattice of steel in the most difficult-to-access places.

Some sense of the cost of removing the asbestos from the Twin Towers can be obtained by the example of 55 Broad Street. The removal of asbestos in that building cost $70 million when it was empty. That was five times the cost of the building's construction 15 years before. 3

Another example is the 60-story Montparnasse Tower in Paris. Experts estimate that the removal of asbestos from this building would take three years with full evacuation, and ten years if the building were to remain occupied during the operation. 4

According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal). 5

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html

+++ end quote

Moral of the story is that it would not have been cheap to fix the asbestos problem.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Construction work in a building as large as the WTC. Are you saying that was usual? It would be unusual for nothing to be going on in a building that size housing so much office space."

I did not say construction work was unusual. You asked how the nuclear devices would have been installed, and I gave you a valid answer.

What was unusual is that when a curious tenant went to see why modifications were made to an area supposedly to prepare for a new tenant, he saw nothing: no offices, no raised floors, no cubicles, etc.


Mr. Aveyard wrote: "That is no evidence. Where is the eye witness saying they saw one of these devices you speak of. You are making an assumption that any building work must have been the work of people planting these devices."

Oh, blow it out your ass, Mr. Aveyard. If the device is brought into the towers at 3 am -- after the cleaning crew has left --, who's gonna see it? And even if someone were to see something other than a wooden crate or something resembling a refrigerator, are they going to know what it was?

Yes, I make the assumption that just about any building work must have been the work of people planting these devices, because the towers were UNDER OCCUPIED. Tenants were leaving, not moving in. If work gets performed (known from the sounds and dust) that doesn't result in something resembling habitable space for a new tenant and if the building subsequently gets destroyed in a truly spectacular fashion, then by golly the assumption is fair.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Has anyone bothered to find out who the preferred supplier was to carry our renovation or construction work. There can't be more than a handful. How about asking them what they were doing in the previous six months to the terrorist attack?"

Sound like a good job for you. Hop to it. Chop, chop!

[Don't be pawning your busy-work off onto me. You want to know? You research it. I don't want to be left holding the bag of researching it for you and then you ignoring the answer.]

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Power outages at the weekend, what is unusual about that? You expect it when your having building work done. Again this is not evidence of people planting nuclear devices."

You'll just have to research this one on your own as well. What was unusual is that the notice for the outage was short notice ~AND~ was so comprehensive, it took down all electronic security measures as well. Your research will prove that it was an IT guy claiming it, and he noted it because his job was to bring down all servers in a computer room before the outage, and then bring them back up afterwards. The duration was too long for battery-back-ups.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "They had neither the means nor the motive to destroy the building having only acquired the building in 2000. And they could have known they'd win the bid."

Nonsense. It wasn't just Silverstein. Look into Kevin Ryan's "Another 19" and you'll see that neither means nor motive were lacking.

Silverstein actually lost the bid. But then the winner of the bid backed out of the deal, giving the bid to Silverstein. Coincidence?

//


x180 FB Participants ATW : What would be the benefit and not just plain DEW

2014-03-13


Atahan Ganduu
Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges What would be the benefit of using a nuclear device and not just plain DEW to accomplish the task?


Norma Rae 12:56am Mar 13
Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges This is the physics observed from a jet, that a robustly built, and is traveling at 500mph and the physics observed is that things get flung back when they hit something solid. The steel perimeter column had a solid plate. You pretend to underestimating them because they are solid posts. You don't need a solid post when you are using steel. A structural column has enough structural rigidity to hold up several thousand tons of mass. They aren't going to crumble like concrete does.

https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F1408668326044814%2Fpermalink%2F1427576867487293%2F&aref=1338475&medium=email&mid=98b5601G5af4d1a72decG146c6bG12e&bcode=1.1394694355.AblKRWZpQAKaT0oz&n_m=maxwell.bridges%40maxbridges.us

Norma Rae 1:05am Mar 13
Dear Mr. Maxwell Bridges Which would take a greater impact force: a 1" thick reinforced concrete slab or a 1" steel plate?

We all know the answer is a 1" steel plate. You are trying to underestimate the steel columns by stating that they are 'hollow'. Do you realize that you can have them hollow because of their ability to withstand buckling. They hold up tons of mass.

Do you think you could get away with the same dimensions if the columns were reinforced concrete? The answer is no. You would need much thicker columns to provide the same support.

So when a robustly built jet rams into this concrete wall, things get flung back, you would have similar effects if it was ramming into those steel columns. The lack of it indicates, planes did not hit the towers.

Norma Rae 1:08am Mar 13
Not to mention the 'plane' rammed into spandrels and concrete floors, you better believe there should have been things flying back.

https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F1408668326044814%2Fpermalink%2F1427576867487293%2F&aref=1338475&medium=email&mid=98b5737G5af4d1a72decG146c6bG12e&bcode=1.1394694665.Abl5CarTVCgzIH0O&n_m=maxwell.bridges%40maxbridges.us

Norma Rae 1:11am Mar 13
Maxwell Bridges wrote "In order for the wings to get a deflection vector backwards (e.g., flung back), you can't have window slits offering zero resistance to the forward momentum over ~50% of the length of the wing."

That's false. The steel beams would have shredded the wings and tail fin.

https://www.facebook.com/n/?groups%2F1408668326044814%2Fpermalink%2F1427576867487293%2F&aref=1338475&medium=email&mid=98b57eeG5af4d1a72decG146c6bG12e&bcode=1.1394694848.AbkDg9C60aD9VVWV&n_m=maxwell.bridges%40maxbridges.us

Norma Rae 1:14am Mar 13
Maxwell Bridges wrote "Do the math, Ms. Rae"

No math necessary. A plane cannot disappear into a structural steel columns wall and concrete floors.

Norma Rae 1:21am Mar 13
Maxwell Bridges wrote "The resolution per frame is vastly different between humans in a football game and a speeding aircraft. Slowing down the playback of the camera is not going to help."

How do you know what the resolution of the cameras were?

Steve Grage 10:45pm Mar 12
After review of the posts above, I don't find much to counter my understandinging there were no hot spots. The white vapor is not smoke, steam, or radioactive dust. The evidence shows it is a continual breakdown of material called fuming by Dr. Wood. Those in hazmat suits perhaps know the air is hazardous because of small pariticle sizes not radiation. There were fires, but they were weird in that they don't burn anything. A technically sound person knows that picture with grappling claws lifting glowing metal is not showing molten metal being handled. The PsyOp has many flaws we can pick apart. Again, thermite, molten metal, nuclear blast all a ruse. In time, we will prove this to all with your effort and study.

Peter Aveyard 2:41am Mar 13
Mr Maxwell Bridges, its not splitting hairs if we are taking about your proposition that the motive for the crime is money. And you inferred it was Silverstein who was behind it. That is not splitting hairs, it underpins your argument.

The fact is the cost to fix would pale into insignificance compared to the revenue Silverstein could expect. It makes no sense on a financial level.

Even if it were true, which it isn't, the return on the investment in this crime doesn't add up. Any insurance received would be far outweighed by the cost of delays due to rebuilding, delays due to the inevitable investigation. Not to mention the phenominal cost of funding this crime.

You are also ignoring the fact of the risks associated with staging this hoax would be so of putting even someone as dumb George Bush could see it would never work.

You cannot seriously believe that Silvetstein thought that a good way to make money would be to destroy the WTC thereby murdering thousands of innocent people, by staging a fake terrorist attack, involving hijacking passenger jets, planting nuclear devices. Bribing people or stealing these devices and some how planting them. And coming up with this plan and executing it within a few months. Don't forget they only acquired the building in 2000.

Whilst you may have a scientific basis for how the building could have been demolished, the means and motive are totally irrational.

Peter Aveyard 3:00am Mar 13
Mr Maxwell Brdges i refer to you comment that begins ... Oh blow it out of your arse..... Despite this ditribe, it remains that no one ever saw one of these devices you speak of our anything in the building that looked strange.

You have not a scrap of evidence that these things ever existed only your thought that they could have.

Whilst I support your research on the science, and you have the right to put this proposition forward, the fact is that so far your theory has zero evidence to support it and when we examine the rationale of this method it fails.

It's time to give up on this idea.


x181 Maxwell C. Bridges : not just plain DEW

2014-03-13

+++ 2014-03-13

Dear Ms. Rae,

You ask: "What would be the benefit of using a nuclear device and not just plain DEW to accomplish the task?"

What exactly is "just plain DEW", Ms. Rae?

How do you power "just plain DEW"?

How is the energy from "just plain DEW" aimed?

How much destructive energy can your "just plain DEW" generate and can it be adjusted?

Let me give you a hint. The most practical way of achieving your "just plain DEW" with sufficient energy to account for much of the observed destruction at the WTC would be your "just plain DEW" powered by something nuclear. A built in power supply that doesn't rely on distant hurricanes or Tesla energy from the atmosphere. Fourth generation nuclear weapons.

If your "just plain DEW" refers to Dr. Wood's work, let's be clear that she does not specify the devices' serial numbers. Nor does she specify their model number. She doesn't even dive into publicly available literature on nuclear devices to shed light on their classifications and which ones fit her theories best. There is a huge gap between her dangling innuendo and something real-world operational.

For all who champion Dr. Wood, it was expected that you would stand on her work's shoulders and take it to the next level, get it closer to the DEW device's classification, its model number, and maybe even its serial number some day in an open and fair court that tries the perpetrators.

//

+++ 2014-03-13

Dear Ms. Rae,

Rhetorically speaking, how much college-level or self-taught physics have you had? Just because my picture's alter-ego is "Heisenberg," doesn't mean that I'm a scientist either, but engineering studies do require their share of such classes. Instead of arguing with me about physics from a weak educational position, maybe you should let my explanations sink in.

You wrote: "This is the physics observed from a jet, that a robustly built, and is traveling at 500mph and the physics observed is that things get flung back when they hit something solid."

Get it through your head. The tower walls were not solid. Half of the surface area consisted of windows. Can you say "slicing and dicing"?

You wrote: "The steel perimeter column had a solid plate."

The box columns of the wall assemblies were composed of 1/4" solid steel plates. The columns were not solid steal beams 14"x14". Spandrels connecting the box columns of a wall assembly ran horizontal at floor levels.

You wrote: "You pretend to underestimating them because they are solid posts."

No, you pretend to over-estimate them, because they are hollow box columns. You pretend to ignore the many places where bolts -- not 14"x14" box columns -- were severed from the impact allowing the pushing and bending movement on these wall assemblies, which has significantly less energy requirements than outright cutting these 1/4" plates, despite the damage having the appearance of a cookie-cutter crisp outline of a plane from the distance.

You wrote: "A structural column has enough structural rigidity to hold up several thousand tons of mass."

So what? How much energy does it take to bend a box-column of 1/4" steel measuring 14"x14"x3 stories?

You wrote: "[The box columns] aren't going to crumble like concrete does."

And they didn't, either. Entire wall assemblies got pushed in cases; individual box columns got bent in cases; and in some cases, individual box columns built from 1/4" steel plates were severed.

You asked: "Which would take a greater impact force: a 1" thick reinforced concrete slab or a 1" steel plate?"

Apples and bananas.

You wrote: "You are trying to underestimate the steel columns by stating that they are 'hollow'. Do you realize that you can have them hollow because of their ability to withstand buckling. They hold up tons of mass."

First of all, the force lines associated with "holding up tons of mass" are different than lateral force lines, like that of a jet clipping into it. The design was for vertical loads. Certainly, lateral loads from (hurricane) winds were considered in the design, but such loads are not like the "point loads" of a jet impact.

Secondly, if you would give some weight to the actual words of the building designers, you would understand that the buildings acted exactly as they were designed. A jet impacting the towers was described as a pencil piercing a mosquito screen. Penetration.

You wrote: "So when a robustly built jet rams into this concrete wall, things get flung back, you would have similar effects if it was ramming into those steel columns."

You introduce confusion here. "This concrete wall" refers either (a) to your hypothetical a 1" thick reinforced concrete slab, or (b) to the concrete wall of the Sandia F4 test. Yet, likewise "ramming into those steel columns" could refer either (a) to your hypothetical 1" steel plate or (b) to the wall assemblies of the towers.

I'm going to go with (b) in both instances, in which case I have already explained the apple and banana differences in other comments. I'm sticking to those explanations that I'm not going to repeat but Ms. Rae should re-read.

You wrote: "The lack of it [plane parts getting flung back] indicates, planes did not hit the towers."

While you continue with your research into Newtonian physics, you need to consider the difference between an elastic collision, an inelastic collision, and combinations of the two.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html

Plane parts getting flung back views the collision as an elastic one. Yet, (a) the designed-in failure-points [bolts], (b) the mesh nature of the columns and zero-resistance window slits, and (c) the proclivity of aircraft materials [in the wings] to deform, be sliced, and get shattered: guarantees that it will be an inelastic collision.

I wrote earlier: "In order for the wings to get a deflection vector backwards (e.g., flung back), you can't have window slits offering zero resistance to the forward momentum over ~50% of the length of the wing."

Ms. Rae wrote: "That's false. The steel beams would have shredded the wings and tail fin."

It's not false. In case you didn't notice, the wings and tail fin were shredded (and shattered), and their momentum took their remnants into the towers. [And equal-and-opposite energies applied to the wall assemblies changed them from their prestine state.] As observed. The airplane parts did not get flung back. So what?

Yet you keep propping up the "lack of flung back airplane parts" as if it defies physics (as one pillar to the hologram theory). Well, its shredding and shattering into the towers does ~not~ defy physics, as already explained in this and other comments.

[And if this crumbling pillar didn't topple the hologram theory, the other fractured pillars of stark limitations in hologram technology -- from viewing angles to physical reflection, projection, and lens surfaces -- should have got it tipping. And this is before we consider that deceitful pillar of purposely misinterpreted radar data by Richard Hall.]

I wrote: "Do the math, Ms. Rae."

Ms. Rae replied: "No math necessary. A plane cannot disappear into a structural steel columns wall and concrete floors."

Spoken by someone who does not understand the importance or applicability of math on this situation. The recorded evidence contradicts your math-less beliefs.

I wrote: "The resolution per frame is vastly different between humans in a football game and a speeding aircraft. Slowing down the playback of the camera is not going to help."

Ms. Rae challenges: "How do you know what the resolution of the cameras were?"

I was referring to frame rate and its impact on frame-to-frame resolution. I know the resolution of the cameras in this aspect because (a) I looked up the standards for camera frame rates and (b) I did the math.

Specifically, most cameras use 24 frames per second. High-speed cameras use many more frames per second. I gave examples for what this frame means for objects going different speeds.

Object A: 10 [mph] = (10 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 14.6 [ft/sec]
Object B: 500 [mph] = (500 * 1.46) [ft/sec] = 730 [ft/sec]

- A receiver running 10 mph for 10 yards (30 ft) for the first down would take ~2 seconds, or 48 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 30 feet would take 0.041 seconds, or 0.98 frames.
- A receiver running 10 mph for 200 ft would take ~13 seconds, or 312 frames.
- A jet flying 500 mph for 200 feet (e.g., length of 767-400ER) would take 0.27 seconds, or 6.57 frames.

Stated another way, if both objects were going across the field of view of a standard camera (which were in use on 9/11),

- each frame of object A represents 0.625 ft of distance (frame-to-frame resolution).

- each frame of object B represents ~30 ft of distance (frame-to-frame resolution).

//


x182 Maxwell C. Bridges : there were no hot spots

2014-03-13

Dear Mr. Grage,

You wrote: "After review of the posts above, I don't find much to counter my understandinging there were no hot spots."

You must be a special kind of denier. Even Ron Morales on 9/11 Debates, an ardent believer in the perfection and infallibility of the government's version of events, was able to locate this reference from an official source.

"On September 11th, 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel and transformer oil stored in tanks underneath the WTC site ruptured and caught fire, creating a giant underground inferno beneath the pile on which the rescue workers toiled."

http://www.911healthnow.org/911healthnow/The_9_11_Health_Crisis_files/Environmental%20Exposures%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

For our purposes here, it is enough to point out to you that under-rubble hot-spots and "underground infernos" was enough of an anomaly that it could not be ignored everywhere.

Lest you be tempted to go with "diesel fuel and transformer oil" as the fuel source for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, I shred it here.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/02/neutron-nuclear-dew-at-facebook-911.html#x73

But don't take my word for it.

--- begin quote

For months after the destruction at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 11th September, 2001, the fires at Ground Zero (GZ) could not be put out, despite the following facts.

- Several inches of dust covered the entire area after the destruction of the WTC buildings.

- Millions of gallons of water were sprayed onto the debris pile.

- Several rainfall events occurred at GZ, some heavy; and

- A chemical fire suppressant called Pyrocool was pumped into the piles

From the Dr. Jones and Mr. Ryan' paper, "Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials"

http://scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Ryan_EnvironmentalAnomalies.pdf

--- end quote

Mr. Grage, you seem to be a Dr. Wood supporter. Let's be clear that she does not specify the devices' serial numbers. Nor does she specify their model number. She doesn't even dive into publicly available literature on nuclear devices to shed light on their classifications and which ones fit her theories best. There is a huge gap between her dangling innuendo and something real-world operational.

For all who champion Dr. Wood, it was expected that you would stand on her work's shoulders and take it to the next level, get it closer to the DEW device's classification, its model number, and maybe even its serial number some day in an open and fair court that tries the perpetrators.

//


x183 Maxwell C. Bridges : inference is in error

2014-03-13


Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard, Part 1/2.

You wrote: "And you inferred it was Silverstein who was behind it."

If you got this inference from me, it is in error. Silverstein was not behind it. He was in on it, and he profited from it. He had business and monetary motives to be involved. The conspiracy was larger, though. You really should read Kevin Ryan's book "Another 19".

You wrote: "The fact is the cost to fix would pale into insignificance compared to the revenue Silverstein could expect. It makes no sense on a financial level."

I disagree. The towers were under-occupied white elephants. It was losing tenants, not gaining them. The asbestos problem would always factor in to keep tenants away, and occupancy low. Plus the amount of time required to implement the asbestos fix factored heavily (negative) into the revenue that Silverstein could expect.

Here's how being part of 9/11 makes sense on the financial level. Silverstein pays nothing to completely wipe out his asbestos problems. He pays nothing to demolish the WTC. He doesn't even have the hassles of getting permits. Silverstein gets paid by insurance to build new buildings. So he doesn't pay anything there, either. He in fact makes a profit and establishes a good, clean, asbestos-free rental space to attract new (patriotic) tenants who will guarantee him a revenue stream going forward.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "... the return on the investment in this crime doesn't add up. Any insurance received would be far outweighed by the cost of delays due to rebuilding, delays due to the inevitable investigation. Not to mention the phenominal cost of funding this crime."

Misguided. Funding of this crime did not come from Silverstein, but probably from the missing $2.3 trillion in DoD spending.

I've already documented how for Silverstein this crime did and is paying off. Mr. Aveyard over-estimates the cost of delays due to rebuilding, etc.

As for the inevitable investigation? How's that going?

Mr. Aveyard continues: "You are also ignoring the fact of the risks associated with staging this hoax would be so of putting even someone as dumb George Bush could see it would never work."

The big lie worked for Hitler and his final solution. The terrorist-attack lie has been working for VP Cheney and all of the neo-con's who played dominant roles in the Bush Administration. Helped along by control of the courts and a complicit media.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "You cannot seriously believe that Silvetstein thought that a good way to make money would be to destroy the WTC thereby murdering thousands of innocent people, by staging a fake terrorist attack, involving hijacking passenger jets, planting nuclear devices."

Silverstein is your strawman. My premise is that the neo-cons in the Bush Administration were behind it. And yes, they thought it was a very good idea.

On the subject of "murdering thousands of innocent people", this number itself might be a tad inflated. Some valid evidence of simVictims on 9/11 does exist, and was even recommended in the 1960's Operation Northwoods document.

Be that as it may, when the nation -- and presumably the Bush Administration -- believed that Iraq had chemical WMD, they were willing to march our amassed forces into the thick of it, potentially causing many times the 9/11 casualty rate. The US death count from Afghanistan and Iraq is already twice the 9/11 casualty rate. Let's ignore those who were injured and maimed, but let's ~not~ ignore the millions who died on the other side. The point is: the murderous intent was there and has been acted on. If the number was truly 3,000 (which I doubt), it was a small sacrifice and even a "Pearl Harbor" planned sacrifice in order to rapidly achieve the goals of their [PNAC's] "Rebuilding America's Defenses" manifesto.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Bribing people or stealing these devices and some how planting them. And coming up with this plan and executing it within a few months. Don't forget they only acquired the building in 2000."

Another strawman. They were planning this well before 2000. A relative of President Bush was on the Board of Directors of the company that worked security at the towers. The chapter on L. Paul Bremer in Kevin Ryan's book "Another 19" is fascinating. Pay attention to what his job was pre-9/11, on 9/11, and post-9/11, and also where his offices were on 9/11. I don't want to spoil it for you. Needless to say, access to the buildings -- even secure WTC-7 -- was not an issue.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Whilst you may have a scientific basis for how the building could have been demolished, the means and motive are totally irrational."

You make me laugh, Mr. Aveyard. Money (via laundering, war-profiteering, insurance settlements, gold heist, spoiled SEC investigations, missing $2.3 trillion, etc.), flexing military might through out the world, and forcefully acquiring control of energy sources all seem like highly rational motives to those who play chess on the world theatre. As for the nuclear means, we've had several generations of generals and majors leaders of the military industrial complex with itchy trigger fingers literally dying to use some of the weapons in our arsenal. I say the 3,000 victim number is inflated (refer to Let's Roll Forum and September Clues -- both with disinformation), but was deemed a "Pearl Harbor" threshold required to get the nation to become patriotic and unquestion the agenda.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "... it remains that no one ever saw one of these devices you speak of our anything in the building that looked strange."

You know, many victims at Afghanistan weddings never saw the Predator drone that fired its missile on them, either.

Gut a Coke machine so that it can transport all or some of the components of the nuclear devices that I'm talking about. They could wheel these things in from the under-ground loading docks to the freight elevators in broad daylight, and few would ever question it. And this is but one hypothetical examples. More realistic are the reports of workers coming into the towers after cleaning crews in the middle of the morning.

end of part 1/2
//

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard, Part 2/2.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "You have not a scrap of evidence that these things ever existed only your thought that they could have."

No, not my thought alone. For your reading pleasure:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071v5.pdf

++++ quote


Fourth generation: 25 mg DT => 1 ton yield at 50% efficiency

Consequently, going from the first to the fourth generation implies a total change of perspective about nuclear weapons: A "change of paradigm" where the concept of very-large-yield and big nuclear weapons for deterrence-use is shifting towards the concept of very-high-precision and compact nuclear weapons for battle-field-use — with yields in the 1 to 100 tons range, that is intermediate between conventional and contemporary nuclear weapons.

...

Third generation nuclear weapons are basically "tailored and special effects" warheads and systems developed between the 1960s and 1980s, mainly for tactical uses or ballistic missile defense. Examples of these developments comprise the following concepts:

- ERW — Enhanced Radiation (neutrons, hard X-rays)
- RRR — Reduced Residual Radiation (enhanced blast)
- EMP — enhanced ElectroMagnetic Pulse
- DEW — Directed Energy (plasma-jet or X-ray laser-beam)
- EPW — Earth Penetrating Warhead
- ETC —

...
[M]ost third generation concepts can be reconsidered in the context of fourth generation nuclear weapons. This is because the suppression of the fission-explosive trigger, and the reliance on fusion rather than fission as the main source of yield in FGNWs, enable to envisage devices of much lower yield and much reduced radiological impact.

++++ end quote


Mr. Aveyard continues: "... the fact is that so far your theory has zero evidence to support it..."

Au contraire, Mr. Aveyard. Uranium and correlated elements in the dust spelling out nuclear hijinx; tritium, tritium, tritium; delays in radiation measurements and stilted sampling of radiation; energy of pulverization combined with destruction at gravitational acceleration; the relative quiet decibel levels; and lots of anomalous evidence, much of it documented in Dr. Wood's book, about torched vehicles and whatnot that the official story can ~not~ even mention, let alone attempt to explain.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "... and when we examine the rationale of this method it fails."

You haven't truly examined the rationale of this method, so your hypnotic conclusion is just wishful thinking.


Mr. Aveyard concludes with hypnotic suggestion: "It's time to give up on this idea."

*Snap of the fingers*

The spell is broken.

The time to earnestly consider nuclear means put into use on 9/11 has come. Mr. Aveyard's lame efforts only under-scores the fact that the cover-up is still going strong.

end of part 2/2
//


x184 Maxwell C. Bridges : based on fission or fussion

2013-03-13

Ms. Rae asked: "Is your theory based on fission or fussion?"

All three; you forgot neutron [and so did Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood in their no-nukes duck-and-weave.]

Neutron devices are based on fusion, but in order to get the high temperatures required for fusion, the devices are often fission-triggerd. The dust reveals evidence of fission. But a solely fission process leaves too much radioactivity. Fusion does not leave large levels of lingering radiation, but both fusion and fission are way too energetic to match the observed evidence.

A neutron device leaves even less radiation. It expels a whole bunch of neutron radiation. If this is targeted upwards, the neutron radiation doesn't affect collateral life-forms or tandem nuclear devices underneath. Moreover, this expellation of neutrons reduces other output yields.

Ms. Rae asked: "How does your current theory differ from your original theory."

My previous theory was for neutron nuclear DEW. It said that the neutron devices were configured to aim upwards the escaping highly energetic neutrons. Because most of the energy was released as these neutrons, other yields of the device (heat, blast, EMP) would be reduced to tactical levels.

My current theorgy takes the neutron nuclear DEW yet another step forward. If the device were further refined (ala Project Excalibur, x-ray lasers), they could further rob from certain yields (heat, blast) while enhancing energy output at certain wavelengths that could be aimed as well. If those wavelengths were on the order of atomic distances, I speculate in a very wild and bat-shit crazy fashion that this might lead to "molecular disassociation" as described by Dr. Wood and the Hutchison effect and that they seem to believe is present in some of the debris.

Ms. Rae asked: "How did you arrive at 6 to 12 devices per tower?"

The towers took ~10 seconds to hit the ground. Witnesses said repeatedly that they heard "boom-boom-boom...", which in other words was at a tempo that the detonations could be counted.

Furthermore, the instance of the leaning upper 30-stories and how its angular momentum was arrested is a further indication of the relative destruction cone range of a single device. Those upper stories accordion-ed in on themselves before the lowest edge of that "block" progressed, say, 10 stories below the impact (or collapse initiation) level.

David Chandler once calculated that the roof line of these upper stories fell at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity. Thus, the structure within those stories had its strength suddenly cut down to 1/3 of what it was.

Yet the destructive cone of the device did not pierce the roof that we could see, other than the instance where the antenna seemed to have lost all support from underneath it and was sinking into the upper portion of the tower.

Thus, if one device can clear about 20 levels, the math over the remaining 90 floors suggests that 6 perfectly functioning devices according to plan could take the tower down to the ground level. But nukes are known for emitting radiation that can foil neighboring nukes. Redundancies would be needed, as well as possibly alternating which side of the inner-core structure (that became the spire) that the devices are mounted on. The boom-count bumps the number of devices per tower up to 12.

The firemen who survived in the stairwell may have done so because the device closest to them failed.

Ms. Rae writes: "you might want to learn the art of briefly summarizing your explanations. We learned to do that in school. ;)"

Ms. Rae, you might want to learn the art of READING things that are long and difficult. We learned to do that in school.

Also, you might want to learn the art of EDITING your comments. No reason in the world that all four of your last comments could not have been edited into the first comment.

Instead, each of your comments generates an email that truly does act like SPAM to my email inbox, because I have Facebook notifications turned on. Your individual twitter-style comments unfairly PUSH my comments out of view when Facebook inserts its "View more comments" compression. You make yourself look like a shoot-from-the-hip ditz in firing off those questions in a short period of time. It is not a race to post comments.

We learned in school how to contemplate what we were going to write, and to edit, edit, edit to make the point well. Authoring off-line would serve you well. You get the added bonus of being able to save off-line and then re-use/re-purpose elsewhere... like blogs or places where they don't quickly disappear.

Nothing about your comments reflects such deliberation. In fact, your asking those questions (again) about things that I have already answered several times and provided links to the answers several more is rather troublesome. I seem to be getting a similar carousel ride from you regarding the physics of an airplane and other evidence suggesting a real aircraft (but not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft), whose underlying purpose is to steer towards holograms...

I tire of such games and carousel spinning.

The problem isn't with me. The problem is that Ms. Rae doesn't read. And she's already admitted (in another thread) "no math is necessary" to explain physical phenomenon, when clearly it greatly helps with the prediction over and above "gut feelings."

//


x185 Maxwell C. Bridges : choose to say the evidence was manipulated

2014-03-13

Mr. Philip Joy wrote: "As for what you say about the NASA pictures, perhaps you are right. Maybe they have been manipulated. I do not believe Dr Wood could present them as evidence in court, however, if they were in any way found to be not an 'accurate depiction of what they purport to show' - to use the legal language."

When they got to court, if the thermal images would have been studied for tampering (which they weren't) and if someone questioned their validity (and no one was), it would ~not~ have been as bad for Dr. Wood as you surmise. She re-purposed them from the USGS Spectroscopy Report, and her due-diligence in referencing where various pieces of evidence came from would have saved her. The USGS would have been on the hook.

I wrote: "The thermal imaging report is ripe for having been manipulated."

Ms. Rae responded: "I guess when the evidence goes against your theory, you choose to say the evidence was manipulated."

Ms. Rae, the evidence comes from a government report. With regards to 9/11, I defy you to point out a single government report that doesn't have major issues which call into question the veracity and validity of its conclusions.

It should be a red-flag when such reports are accepted into evidence unchallenged.

So what are you going to believe?

[1] Even those who support the official story have had to dig deep in order to attribute the long-lasting under-rubble fires to diesel fuel (but they failed, and the math bears this out.)

[2] One of the reasons that nano-thermite has gotten such a long run is that its reaction with steel doesn't require oxygen from the air. (Of course, the math also proves that this can't explain the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.)

[3] Tons of first responders and clean-up workers have testified to the nature and existance of hot-spots.

We know they were there.

Yet the USGS Spectroscopy Report comes out and with one single image, they try to shoot down speculation into the long-lasting hot-spots by saying they weren't so long-lasting. How hard would it be to juke that image? Could be as easy as inserting an image from October 23 or November 23, but purposely mis-labeling it "September 23."

//


x186 Maxwell C. Bridges : understanding of Newtonian physics seems to max-out

2014-03-13

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

Your understanding of Newtonian physics seems to max-out at collisions that have velocities under 100 mph. You keep applying those simple outcomes (e.g., wings would bounce off the building) to situations that are vastly different. You fail to grasp how outcomes change when velocities are very large (e.g., 500 mph).

At those velocities, the energies involved (velocity-squared) are on the order of what it takes to overcome the static structural energies of the materials in question.

Whereas deceleration and deformation are common for velocities under 100 mph, when the velocities are large, deceleration and deformation doesn't happen at the "wing-level", but happens suddenly at micro-levels within the wing, with the observed outcome being the shattering of materials (applicable to both wing and box columns). It is fully compliant with Newton's Laws.

If you don't have a high speed camera, you can't see this. And slowing down the footage of a camera capturing 24-frames/second is insufficient to capture all that is going on.

You keep posting images from the Sandia F4 test. In many ways, the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video is more applicable to the 9/11 planes than the Sandia test is. In that video, they launch a wedge at a car. One could think of the wedge as a box column of the towers, and the car as the wing of the 9/11 aircraft. The results are that the car (wing) gets sliced while at the same time the wedge gets splattered into hundreds of pieces.

Something you'll notice is that the car moves from a stationary position and in the direction the rocket wedge was traveling. In the 9/11 paradigm, this can be though of as the wing decelerating. Were it not for the barrier behind the experiment, remnants of the rocket wedge would have gone further than any piece of the sliced car. The point is, your "fling back" theory applied to this experiment would have had pieces of the car -- like the entire hood -- bouncing off of the rocket wedge and flying much further in the direction the rocket had been traveling. The reality is that the hood was sliced in two and was displaced not that far from where it was.

Applying back to 9/11, just as the car was sliced and shattered, wings of the aircraft were sliced and shattered. The car, hood, or top weren't bounced, just as the wings weren't bounce. Also, equal-and-opposite, just as the car shattered the steel wedge, the wings of a plane in cases had the energy to slice 1/4" steel used in the box columns, when it didn't severe bolts, push wall assemblies, and bend individual columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

The Sandia and Mythbuster videos should be giving you "ah-ha" moments.

By the way, the second video is about a rocket-sled into a car. It is similar to the Sandia test. This would be the outcome if the wall assemblies had no window gaps (offering zero resistance) for the material to go through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

//


x187 Maxwell C. Bridges : reverse the roles

2014-03-14

Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

You write: "Now reverse the roles and send the car flying at that speed and ram it into the steel plate. What do you think the results will be? A) The car still get smashed or B) the car will slice through the steel plate."

You continued: "You seem to fail to understand that it's not the one that is traveling that will do the damage. If you reverse the roles, you will have the same outcome. the steel plate represents the steel columns. The car represent the plane. That is the point you are failing to understand."

There was no failure to understand on my part, which is the very reason I brought up the Mythbuster rocket-plow video (for you to understand). I knew that role reversal would produce similar outcomes, and that this was applicable to the 9/11 planes at the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

Let's be clear what we are talking about. In the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video, they had a solid steel beam (but wedge-shaped and in an assembly) rocketed at a stationary car. The wedge decelerated as it sliced the car and was broken into pieces.

If we say X1 was the velocity along the positive x-axis, the y-axis is left or right, and the z-axis is up or down, this could be represented as the vector V1(X1,Y1=0,Z1=0). After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0. In other words in this experiment to the best of my observation skills, no pieces of wedge or car bounced in the negative x direction during the first impact. Part of the reason for this is that the car was resting on blocks and was not bolted to them. [Behind the car a short distance was a dirt backstop to the experiment. Some pieces of debris had a second impact with this solid backstop and then did bounce in the negative x direction.]

When we reverse the actors to have the car rocket towards the solid steel beam (wedge assembly), the results are going to be similar. The car is going to decelerate some as it split itself at the wedge while the wedge gets broken into pieces. After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where it is expected that X1>Xn>0. Like the previous example of a free-standing car, it is assumed that the wedge assembly is also free-standing and can be pushed backwards. If the wedge assembly is bolted down or resting against that backstop, some bounce shards (e.g., X1>0>Xn) are possible.

It is instructive to note (in the original and reversal) that nothing inhibits the car's pieces from maintaining a positive Xn component in its post-impact vector. This differs from the Sandia F4 crash and the 2nd Mythbuster video (Rocket-Sled Destroys Car) in this regard due to the concrete wall or backstop.

++++

Let's relate this to 9/11.

[A] It is observed that few pieces -- certainly not major chunks of wing or tail fin -- bounce off of the steel wall assemblies. Due to the window gaps of the wall assemblies, the box columns acted like the rocket-wedge in slicing and shattering the wings into pieces that obtained a post-impact vector Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0 [into the building].

[B] Close inspection of the wall assembly where the wing hit (but not at engines) show (1) instances where wall assemblies were separated from neighboring assemblies at bolted junctions and pushed, (2) instances where box columns of an assembly were bent, and (3) instances where the box column was cut. Given is that the energy to achieve #1 or #2 is less than what is required for #3. However, just like the rocket-wedge was broken into pieces in the Mythbuster video even while slicing the car, it is remains within the realm of possibilities for the wings to achieve #3.

Those who make the no-planes argument at the WTC say that [A] no bounced wing pieces and [B] slicing 14"x14" box columns of 1/4" thick steel are not compliant with physics.

I disagree, and so does the applicable aspects of the Mythbuster's experiments.

Furthermore, seismic data noted something at the time of impact that they've attributed to the impact. Furthermore, two sets of radar data from two different systems are in agreement (within their tolerance limits), and radar pings only happen off of solid objects. The radar data agrees with 3D modeling of flight paths captured on camera. Furthermore, projectiles were observed flying out of the tower after impact, were tracked bouncing off another building, and came to rest on another street. They were determined to be an engine and a wheel assembly [but not necessarily from the alleged commercial plane.] Furthermore, holograms have technical limitations that would be impossible to overcome from all viewing/recording perspectives and at the scale required.

What pillar is left to hold up the no-plane argument [at the WTC]?

//


x188 Maxwell C. Bridges : Re-Posting of Material from other threads

2014-03-14

Part 1/2 Re-Posting of Material from other threads

The following isn't necessarily where I'm at now in my discussion with Ms. Rae, but documents where we were at so another thread could be cleaned up.

Dear Ms. Rae {posted 2014-03-11},

You wrote: "Even a drone or fighter jet would have exploded on contact with the perimeter structural steel columns."

No it wouldn't. In order to explode, it would have to have something explosive. The jet fuel didn't become a fire ball until it had separated from the wings and then reached by an ignition source. The fuselage had already severed bolts and pushed wall assemblies before the wings with fuel hit.

The outer wall assemblies -- the perimeter structural steel columns -- did not constitute a gapless, solid wall as depicted in your images that re-purposes things from the Sandia F4 test and various missile tests.

Ms. Rae wrote: "That engine on Murray & Church was planted there."

This isn't a fact. It is your concluding opinion, which comes about after side-stepping much evidence that proves it could have landed there.

Click on the photo album and view all images, not just the thumbnails that appears at this top link.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1423831401195173/

Ms. Rae wrote: "It is sitting under the scaffolding in an upright position."

So? Take a beer can, put some sand in it, toss it in the air, see how it lands. (Vary the tosses so some end-over-end come into play, or also that it might hit something on the way down, or that the toss had forward momentum, or that a curb would assist in uprighting it.) Sure, most of the time it will not come to rest upright. But there will be instances in your test set when it does come to rest upright.

Ms. Rae wrote: "There is no evidence of any crash physics with that location."

Would you know what the evidence looked like? How much of a dent in the pavement or crack in the concrete do you expect? How can you say that such damage wasn't there?

The engine itself looked pretty dinged up to me. It certainly wasn't going to be re-furbished and put back into service.

Ms. Rae wrote: "That 'engine' crashed somewhere else and was placed there. ... That engine on Murray & Church was planted there."

I'll use the same argument that I used against the September Clues Crew who were promoting that false meme "all video imagery was tainted." If they were going to go to the effort of faking all of the video imagery (or of planting an engine), then why didn't they do it right? Meaning, if the videos were faked, why not make them physics-compliant? Meaning, if the engine was planted, why didn't they plant one of the same make and model of the alleged aircraft?

//

Dear Ms. Rae {posted 2014-03-11},

You write: "The wings upon impact with the perimeter steel columns would have been sufficient for the explosion."

Why would they explode? What conditions are required for jet fuel to explode? Jet fuel is not as volatile as gasoline. Jet fuel has more in common with home heating oil than, say premium gasoline. It's similar to kerosene in density, viscosity and volatility. It ignites at a higher temperature than gasoline and releases fewer fumes.

When the wings of the aircraft sliced into and were sliced by the box columns of the wall assemblies, the jet fuel previously contained therein took the path of least resistance and continued largely in the direction of its momentum prior to impact. In other words, the fuel entered the towers.

The ignition source for hard-to-ignite jet / diesel fuel was likely the hot exhaust of the jet engines when they finally entered the towers. This is why the explosion was not on impact but after much of the plane had penetrated the towers.

Ms. Rae writes: "Try ramming your car against this [wall assembly] and tell me it wont explode."

Apple-and-oranges. My engine is in the front of my car, while the aircraft's engines were out to the sides and set back about half the length of the fuselage. My engine uses highly volatile gasoline, while the aircraft uses jet fuel. My car would be lucky to reach speeds 1/3 that of the aircraft, which is a significant reduction in the available energy to shatter the materials of the car or slice into columns.

// end of part 1/2

+++++

Part 2/2 Posting of material from other threads

Dear Ms. Norma Rae {posted 2014-03-13},

Your understanding of Newtonian physics seems to max-out at collisions that have velocities under 100 mph. You keep applying those simple outcomes (e.g., wings would bounce off the building) to situations that are vastly different. You fail to grasp how outcomes change when velocities are very large (e.g., 500 mph).

At those velocities, the energies involved (velocity-squared) are on the order of what it takes to overcome the static structural energies of the materials in question.

Whereas deceleration and deformation are common for velocities under 100 mph, when the velocities are large, deceleration and deformation doesn't happen at the "wing-level", but happens suddenly at micro-levels within the wing, with the observed outcome being the shattering of materials (applicable to both wing and box columns). It is fully compliant with Newton's Laws.

If you don't have a high speed camera, you can't see this. And slowing down the footage of a camera capturing 24-frames/second is insufficient to capture all that is going on.

You keep posting images from the Sandia F4 test. In many ways, the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video is more applicable to the 9/11 planes than the Sandia test is. In that video, they launch a wedge at a car. One could think of the wedge as a box column of the towers, and the car as the wing of the 9/11 aircraft. The results are that the car (wing) gets sliced while at the same time the wedge gets splattered into hundreds of pieces.

Something you'll notice is that the car moves from a stationary position and in the direction the rocket wedge was traveling. In the 9/11 paradigm, this can be though of as the wing decelerating. Were it not for the barrier behind the experiment, remnants of the rocket wedge would have gone further than any piece of the sliced car. The point is, your "fling back" theory applied to this experiment would have had pieces of the car -- like the entire hood -- bouncing off of the rocket wedge and flying much further in the direction the rocket had been traveling. The reality is that the hood was sliced in two and was displaced not that far from where it was.

Applying back to 9/11, just as the car was sliced and shattered, wings of the aircraft were sliced and shattered. The car, hood, or top weren't bounced, just as the wings weren't bounce. Also, equal-and-opposite, just as the car shattered the steel wedge, the wings of a plane in cases had the energy to slice 1/4" steel used in the box columns, when it didn't severe bolts, push wall assemblies, and bend individual columns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

The Sandia and Mythbuster videos should be giving you "ah-ha" moments.

By the way, the second video is about a rocket-sled into a car. It is similar to the Sandia test. This would be the outcome if the wall assemblies had no window gaps (offering zero resistance) for the material to go through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

//

Dear Ms. Norma Rae {posted 2014-03-14},

You write: "Now reverse the roles and send the car flying at that speed and ram it into the steel plate. What do you think the results will be? A) The car still get smashed or B) the car will slice through the steel plate."

You continued: "You seem to fail to understand that it's not the one that is traveling that will do the damage. If you reverse the roles, you will have the same outcome. the steel plate represents the steel columns. The car represent the plane. That is the point you are failing to understand."

There was no failure to understand on my part, which is the very reason I brought up the Mythbuster rocket-plow video (for you to understand). I knew that role reversal would produce similar outcomes, and that this was applicable to the 9/11 planes at the WTC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

Let's be clear what we are talking about. In the Mythbuster's rocket-snowplow video, they had a solid steel beam (but wedge-shaped and in an assembly) rocketed at a stationary car. The wedge decelerated as it sliced the car and was broken into pieces.

If we say X1 was the velocity along the positive x-axis, the y-axis is left or right, and the z-axis is up or down, this could be represented as the vector V1(X1,Y1=0,Z1=0). After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0. In other words in this experiment to the best of my observation skills, no pieces of wedge or car bounced in the negative x direction during the first impact. Part of the reason for this is that the car was resting on blocks and was not bolted to them. [Behind the car a short distance was a dirt backstop to the experiment. Some pieces of debris had a second impact with this solid backstop and then did bounce in the negative x direction.]

When we reverse the actors to have the car rocket towards the solid steel beam (wedge assembly), the results are going to be similar. The car is going to decelerate some as it split itself at the wedge while the wedge gets broken into pieces. After impact the vector of any generalized piece n becames Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where it is expected that X1>Xn>0. Like the previous example of a free-standing car, it is assumed that the wedge assembly is also free-standing and can be pushed backwards. If the wedge assembly is bolted down or resting against that backstop, some bounce shards (e.g., X1>0>Xn) are possible.

It is instructive to note (in the original and reversal) that nothing inhibits the car's pieces from maintaining a positive Xn component in its post-impact vector. This differs from the Sandia F4 crash and the 2nd Mythbuster video (Rocket-Sled Destroys Car) in this regard due to the concrete wall or backstop.

++++

Let's relate this to 9/11.

[A] It is observed that few pieces -- certainly not major chunks of wing or tail fin -- bounce off of the steel wall assemblies. Due to the window gaps of the wall assemblies, the box columns acted like the rocket-wedge in slicing and shattering the wings into pieces that obtained a post-impact vector Vn(Xn,Yn,Zn), where X1>Xn>0 [into the building].

[B] Close inspection of the wall assembly where the wing hit (but not at engines) show (1) instances where wall assemblies were separated from neighboring assemblies at bolted junctions and pushed, (2) instances where box columns of an assembly were bent, and (3) instances where the box column was cut. Given is that the energy to achieve #1 or #2 is less than what is required for #3. However, just like the rocket-wedge was broken into pieces in the Mythbuster video even while slicing the car, it is remains within the realm of possibilities for the wings to achieve #3.

Those who make the no-planes argument at the WTC say that [A] no bounced wing pieces and [B] slicing 14"x14" box columns of 1/4" thick steel are not compliant with physics.

I disagree, and so does the applicable aspects of the Mythbuster's experiments.

Furthermore, seismic data noted something at the time of impact that they've attributed to the impact. Furthermore, two sets of radar data from two different systems are in agreement (within their tolerance limits), and radar pings only happen off of solid objects. The radar data agrees with 3D modeling of flight paths captured on camera. Furthermore, projectiles were observed flying out of the tower after impact, were tracked bouncing off another building, and came to rest on another street. They were determined to be an engine and a wheel assembly [but not necessarily from the alleged commercial plane.] Furthermore, holograms have technical limitations that would be impossible to overcome from all viewing/recording perspectives and at the scale required.

What pillar is left to hold up the no-plane argument [at the WTC]?

// End of Part 2/2


x189 Maxwell C. Bridges : you were once a 'no planer'

2014-03-14

Dear Mr. Ronald Stacker,

You wrote: "[Y]ou're on record saying that you were once a 'no planer'. Could you provide links to some of your past writings, in regards to this? I'm curious as to what evidence allowed you to conclude that there were no planes."

Sure, here's a good article that I no longer hold to. Shows evolution in thought and that I'm a rational person who is willing to change my views when new information comes to light.

"I'm a no-planer."
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-no-planer.html


I was mesmurmized by September Clues, even though I knew it was so crafty and clever that I was somehow being duped. I always championed it in a back-handed manner, not believing everything but hoping for some nuggets of truth. The reasoning, logic, and antics of those on the Clues Forum certainly did not give me confidence that their overly broad conclusions were valid.

My main motivation both for back-handedly championing September Clues, Dr. Wood, and the Anonymous Physicist were for the public (the forum) to fairly and objectively consider individual pieces of evidence (nuggets of truth) contained within those works, because the trend that I had noticed was for closed-minded thinkers to find small issues with the work, to label thus the work as "looney" or "disinfo", and then to dismiss the work in its entirety.

The key piece of evidence that turned my tide was the 3D modeling of various flight paths taken from different perspectives that showed them in agreement with one another and within the tolerances of two different sets of radar data. September Clues had label such perspectives "the dive bomber", "the level flight", "the up-swoop". With 20/20 hindsight, they were grossly mis-interpreting the effects of camera perspective.

Moreover, when I wrote about collision physics, I was suffering at the time from the same misperception that I attribute to Ms. Norma Rae today. Namely, most of my college physics dealt with comparatively low velocities and perfect situations with regards to the reaction of materials in the objects.

So between the Sandia F4-into-concrete-wall video and the Mythbuster's Rocket-Snowplow video, the errors in my physics dawned on me when velocities became very large. The energies at 500 mph inact deceleration and deformation much quicker in more localized areas first causing shattering of materials before (or instead of) deceleration and deformation of the object as a whole.


You may find these other articles of interest. Because they were over 1-1/2 years ago, it gives some indication why my patience on these themes is so short.

"More Absurd 9/11 Holograms"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/07/more-absurd.html


"Contrived 9/11 Holograms with Radar"
http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2012/08/contrived.html


//


x190 Maxwell C. Bridges : Engine Out of Towers

2014-03-14


North Tower






South


++++++++++
















x191 Maxwell C. Bridges : rather muddled stop the PsyOp

2014-03-15

Dear Mr. Grage,

I'm sorry, but your last comment was rather muddled. I apologize in advance, therefore, if I've read too much or too little into your writing.

Mr. Grage wrote: "I'll stop the PsyOp right where you have penetration at first perimeter wall."

How? Are you saying that an engine could not pierce the first perimeter wall, cross an essentially empty (or not very resistive) open floor, exit through a corner that had no beams to resist, and fly a parabolic curve to bounce off of one building before hitting the street and rolling under the scaffolding? I don't rule it out.

Mr. Grage continued: "Track a trajectory to where the wrong engine was planted."

Let's dissect this. "Track a trajectory." Are we in agreement that something large and trailing smoke was ejected from the towers within moments of the explosion? We ought to be. What was it, where did it go exactly, and what was found where it landed?

"The wrong engine." We seem to be in agreement that the engine under the scaffolding did not match the make and model of the engines on the alleged commercial aircraft. Not a problem for me, because I've been saying since I entered FB that the aircraft was not the alleged commercial plane. My reasoning was that it flew too fast at low altitude with exceptional accuracy. [And not being the alleged commercial plane and having enhancements to at least the engines, all bets are off with regards to what other enhancements it may have had, such as the materials and strength of its wings.]

Expanding the phrase above to "the wrong engine was planted" is where your logic fails. If the culprits knew what type of commercial plane was going to be scapegoated, if they knew that they would have to go to the effort of planting a banged up and still smoking engine, then we could reason that they would be smart enough to plant an engine of the proper make and model, particularly if they knew that it was going to be paraded befor the world as evidence. And your supposition into coordination of the ruse doesn't take into account the planning required to get something large and trailing smoke to rocket out of the towers at the time of explosion. [I repeat: What was it, where did it go exactly, and what was found where it landed?]

Mr. Grage wrote: "You're smart enough to know better. Are you playing us?"

Indeed, I am smart enough to know better than to swallow the weak premise of no planes that you are playing us at. Which would be easier to implement?

[A] Take a plane of similar (but not exact) make and model of the commercial aircraft to be scapegoated, paint it as a commercial aircraft, swap it at some point during a transponder-less flight with the alleged commercial aircraft, fly it fast and accurately into the towers, and then have an unforeseen event like its (wrong) engine slip out of the towers trailing smoke and land as damning evidence of the ruse nearby.

Or.

[B] Holograms? Cloaked planes? Launching a smoking projectile? Ignoring the projectile and planting a banged up engine -- the wrong one at that -- somewhere along the projectile's path.

When I see holo-Santa and holo-Elvis at the local mall without tell-tale limitations (like glass for it to be projected on) and convincing from all angles and perspectives, then maybe you'll have half a chance of duping me into your premise. Likewise, when cloaking is convincing from all angles and perspectives.

Meanwhile, Mr. Grage, it is well that you bring up "PsyOp" and "playing us".

//


x192 Maxwell C. Bridges : could have exited the corner

2014-03-15

Dear Ms. Rae,

You wrote: "An engine could not have exited through the corner. It would have to have squeezed through the opening."

Indeed the image you posted shows a vertical beam in the corner.

But now go to the first in the series of images that I posted from Yesterday at 12:19pm. Click on it so that you can see a bigger image.

Already marked with red arrows are corner's that don't have that vertical beam, about every other floor didn't have a vertical beam.

Thus we see that an engine could have exited the corner and could have squeezed through the opening.

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1619640_10202561174384373_400189619_n.jpg

//

++++

Dear Ms. Rae,

Four images ago (including my repeat), the image had two call-outs in red. The top one says: "The steel beam is still hanging there, so it could not have squeezed through this whole."

The bottom call-out says: "This hole is barely exposed."

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1004540_10200991726035577_778777018_n.jpg

The bottom call-out is wrong in its analysis. The bottom window is the one that did not have a vertical steel beam in the middle.

More importantly, the junk that blocks the hole probably came from other portions of the aircraft and jammed up the hole ~after~ the remnants of the engine and severed landing wheel assembly rocketed out.

Two images ago (A), your cyan circle is of a building that is marked correctly in cyan in B (one image ago.) It is impossible to tell in A based on the camera perspective whether the smoking object flying above Church street was captured as it crossed the red line at the cyan cirle (in B) or was already one or more blocks down Church closer to Murray.

[A] https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/10003330_10200992428333134_210797818_n.jpg

[B] https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/l/t1.0-9/1912542_10200992430933199_1145608948_n.jpg

I am inclined to believe in A that the object trailing smoke was closer to the camera (and closer to Murray) than the building circled in cyan in both images.

Ergo, I remain convinced of a real aircraft and the possibility of its engine and wheel going the distances, as video taped and as found at Church and Murray.

//

Dear Ms. Rae,

You asked: "Do you want to go on record saying that you believe that engine on Murray & Church flew out of the twin tower and traveled approximately 4 football fields and landed in an upright position?"

Yes.

Before I explain why this is believable to me (based on boring physics), let me offer one bit of unsubstantiated speculation. It is within the realm of probability that the heavy engine could have bounced and teetered to its upright final position under the scaffolding. But it also wouldn't surprise me if agents on clean-up duty dragged it from a more conspicuous location (like in the middle of the street) to a spot under the scaffolding in preparation to dispose of it, but they failed before it was spotted and pictures taken. The engine, not being of the same make and model of the alleged commercial aircraft, escaping from the towers ~not~ according to plan would have been something to dispose of.

By the way, your compass picture needs an additional line. You have a red line at 90 degrees and a second at 45 degrees coming out of the corner of WTC-2.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/1622678_10200991652313734_568510763_n.jpg

The missing line would be the trajectory of the plane into WTC-2. Because the engine bounced off of a building in the block labeled 45 Park Place, a line from there to the WTC-2 corner could be drawn and would probably be found as coincident with the line extension of the trajectory into the WTC-2.

Within the image is a note about how the engine was found approximately 1400 ft away (and a football field is only 360 feet long).

Physics proves that an object with an initial velocity as slow as 122 mph, starting from a height of 975 ft (height of plane impact on WTC-2), and falling due to the force of gravity, would travel the requisite 1,400 ft.

In summary, an engine flying off of the plane through the towers and landing near Church and Murray -- as observed -- remains believable, and therefore the engine was not planted.


+++ boring details

Change to common units.
1 [mph] * {5280 [ft/mile]} / {(3600 [sec/hr]} = 1.47 [ft/sec]

100 [mph] = 147 [ft/sec]
150 [mph] = 220 [ft/sec]
200 [mph] = 294 [ft/sec]

Determine height of plane impact:
WTC tower height = ~1340 ft
# floors = 110
height per floor = 1340/110 = ~12.18 ft

"impact hole that extended from the 78th to 84th floors."
80 floors = (12.18 [ft/floor]) * 80 [floors] = ~975 ft

How long does it take an object to fall 975 ft under the force of gravity?

gravity = g = 32 [ft/sec^2]
d = (1/2)*g(t^2)
t = sqr(2d/g)
time to fall 975 ft = sqr((2*975 [ft])/32 [ft/sec^2])
t(975) = 7.8 seconds

How far can an object travel in 7.8 seconds with a given initial velocity in parenthesis and in mph?

d(100) = 1,147 ft
d(150) = 1,720 ft
d(200) = 2,294 ft

Given a distance flown of 1,400 feet, determine its initial velocity:

d(x) = 1,400 ft = (y [ft/sec] * (7.8 [sec])
y = 1400 [ft] / 7.8 [sec] = 179.3 [ft/sec]
x mph = (179.3 [ft/sec] / (1.47 [ft/sec])) [miles/hour]
d(122 mph) = 1,400 ft

An object with an initial velocity as slow as 122 mph, starting from a height of 975 ft (height of plane impact on WTC-2), and falling due to the force of gravity, would travel 1,400 ft in the 7.8 seconds it takes to fall to the ground.

//


x193 FB Participants ATW : trajectory of a plane is moot

2014-03-16

2014-03-16

Norma Rae
The line showing a trajectory of a plane is moot since there was no plane. We can only go with the evidence and the exit holes. So the corner trajectory as shown in videos exits at a 45 degree angle. The other trajectory goes straight out. These are the two trajectories based on the exiting debris.

Why would an engine leave such a distinct white trail that only missiles/rockets leave behind? Google burning object white trail trajectory


Michael Arnold 10:34pm Mar 15
Maxwell: I've been reading the comments. It's been a very interesting discussion. I have a question or two for you, if you don't mind. You stated that the engine might have been moved to under the scaffolding and a photo taken before it could be removed altogether. But wouldn't the engine falling from 975 ft. have caused a big crater in the ground? Also, since it was 1,400 ft away from the South Tower, I am not aware of the extent that the area was cleared of people leaving the area of the North Tower i.e., were there no people in the area to witness the engine crashing to the ground? I realize there was pandemonium that day, but at that point, in the moments before FL 175 crashed int WTC2, the only incident was the first crash, so there might have been people walking in that area. You might not know the answer to the second question.


2014-03-16

Peter Aveyard 5:42am Mar 16
Maxwell Bridges
First of all, my apologies for the delay. I have been somewhat distracted dealing with other posts from people who seem all too willing to accept a conclusion without questioning the evidence because it fits with what they want to believe.

Anyway, back to your theory. So it seems that the only tangible evidence you have to support your DEW theory is the presence of depleted uranium.

Refresh my memory, who said there was uranium at ground zero?

Who did the analysis?

How much was there?


x194 Maxwell C. Bridges : a big crater in the ground

2014-03-16

+++ 2014-03-16

Dear Mr. Michael Arnold,

You wrote that I had stated that "the engine might have been moved to under the scaffolding and a photo taken before it could be removed altogether."

Let me repeat that this is unfounded, unsubstantiated speculation on my part.

Mr. Arnold continued: "But wouldn't the engine falling from 975 ft. have caused a big crater in the ground?"

In total the engine fell 975 vertical feet, but if you were following the pictures, it bounced off of another building first, which absorbed much energy.

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1926868_10202561179144492_213505081_n.jpg

But to your point, falling the remaining distance from that other building would have left some damage on the ground. Maybe it was the cause of the concrete curb damage.

Mr. Arnold continued: "Also, since it was 1,400 ft away from the South Tower, I am not aware of the extent that the area was cleared of people leaving the area of the North Tower i.e., were there no people in the area to witness the engine crashing to the ground?"

I don't know, but sounds like a good research project for you.

//

+++ 2014-03-16



Dear Ms. Norma Rae,

You write so confidently: "The line showing a trajectory of a plane is moot since there was no plane."

Poppycock. Two separate radar systems, forty-four independent video recordings from different perspectives, plus scores of eye-witness testimony disagree with your "no plane" contention, as does the smoking engine from an aircraft that has been traced to its resting position 1400 feet (or almost 4 football fields) away and proven by physics that an exit speed as slow as 122 mph could achieve this. (Owing to the engine first bouncing off of another building at 45 Park Place that exhibits crash physics, the engine was probably going much faster than that.)

Everything that you have offered as an alternative explanation for what was observed and recorded has come up short, from projected holograms to cloaked planes.

You're just going to have to face up to the fact that you have been duped by the "no planes" premise. And I believe the reason the NPT premise was hyped so much and so craftily by the likes of September Clues (with an end goal of failure) was to distract and distort from the two valid instances of no planes (like the fly-over at the Pentagon and Shanksville.)

Ms. Rae writes: "We can only go with the evidence and the exit holes. So the corner trajectory as shown in videos exits at a 45 degree angle."

Poppycock again and fooey on your understanding of geometry this time. It's been proven that alternating floors of the towers did not have vertical beams in the angled corners, which is precisely the opening in question for a smoking engine to fly through.

Those angled corners are really no different than the corner pockets on a pool table. Thus, according to your misinterpretation of the trajectory, when playing pool, the only way to sink pool balls into the corner pocket is to shoot them in from a 45 degree angle from the pocket. We both know that this isn't so, and that other angles can cleanly sink a pool ball.

Your assumption of a 45 degree angle for a trajectory out of the towers from the corner window is just plain wrong and verges on being deceitful.

Ms. Rae asks: "Why would an engine leave such a distinct white trail that only missiles/rockets leave behind?"

This is a jet engine that had been engorged in jet fuel hardly a full second before exiting the towers. Even after separated from the wings and its fuel tanks, the engine itself would have fuel lines with residual fuel that could burn inefficiently and leave a distinct white trail behind. If you've ever driven behind cars in need of a ring job and tune-up or even diesel trucks not warmed up yet, you'd know that missiles and rockets are the only things that can leave distinct smoke trails behind.

Ms. Rae writes: "I didn't verify your calculations..."

Shame on you. And they are so simple. The only thing that is wrong is the exit velocity of 122 mph, which would be needed to travel laterally 1,400 ft while falling 925 ft. The reality is the the engine hit another building prior to traveling the full 1,400 ft or falling the full 925 ft, which suggests that the exit velocity was > 122 mph.

Ms. Rae writes: "... but I highly doubt an engine would be flying out of there after busting through the first set of structural steel columns/concrete floor/spandrels."

Your cognitive dissonance is strong, Ms. Rae. If the impact velocity was 500 mph and the exit velocity was less than, say, 200 mph, the decrease in speed is accounted for by "busting through the first set of structural steel columns." The premise is that the engine impacted between floors, so it would not have "burst through concrete floors or spandrels," a misrepresentation on your part.

And even "bursting through steel columns" is a misinterpretation, because it hit against wall assemblies, severed connecting bolts, and pushed those assemblies out of the way or bent them out of the way, both of which require less energy than "bursting through."

Ms. Rae writes: "Don't you think the whole plane would have gone in a different direction after the first impact???"

What misinterpretation are you talking about now?

The airplane did not impact the towers in a perpendicular fashion (or 90 degrees). No, it hit at an angle which is exhibited in all videos and the momentum vectors of the parts ejected out of the tower.

//


x195 Maxwell C. Bridges : only tangible evidence to support DEW theory is the presence of depleted uranium

2014-03-16

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

You wrote: "So it seems that the only tangible evidence you have to support your DEW theory is the presence of depleted uranium."

I do not like your game playing, Mr. Aveyard, like attributing false statements to me. I never said that the WTC had depleted uranium.

Depleted uranium was used in Iraq and Afghanistan by the US military, and indicates a certain degree of callousness in the minds of our leaders that it would be deployed at all, and against international law. And its use in war also indicates a potential bent to use nuclear means in the false flag events to get the wars kicked into gear.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Refresh my memory, who said there was uranium at ground zero?"

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) did an excellent job of promptly, systematically, and thoroughly taking dust samples. They put their findings into tables.

However, when it came to discussing the significance of certain elements in the tables, they purposely dropped the ball and instead focus on asbestos and other toxants in the dust in order to attribute ill health effects exclusively to them. Their omission of any analysis of their own tables of what they measured is pretty glaring.

The Paul Lioy report on three "representative" dust samples, all East of the WTC, also documents the presence of Uranium. Its Table 2 lists various inorganic elements and metals, but does not provide details into meaning or correlations for Lithium (Li), Barium (Ba), Strontium (Sr), Chromium (Cr), or Uranium (U).

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Who did the analysis?"

Very good question, because neither the USGS nor the Paul Lioy et al group nor Dr. Jones analyzed the obvious correlations of various elements in the dust that spell out nuclear hijinx.

But Jeff Prager did.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "How much was there?"

Sounds like a good research project for you, Mr. Aveyard.

The amount doesn't really matter. Here's a quote from Jeff Prager when he studied the tabulated results from the USGS: "Thorium and Uranium: These elements only exist in radioactive form. Thorium is a radioactive element formed from Uranium by decay. It's very rare and should not be present in building rubble, ever. So once again we have verifiable evidence that a nuclear fission event has taken place."

You can find more information on the subject here, as well as links to take you to source documents. Rabbit-hole warning.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/01/nuclear-9112001-for-vt.html#x12

//


x196 Peter Aveyard : false statements WTC had depleted uranium

2014-03-16

Peter Aveyard 11:15am Mar 16
You said..
"I do not like your game playing, Mr. Aveyard, like attributing false statements to me. I never said that the WTC had depleted uranium."
I beg to differ, clearly you inferred that the WTC had depleted uranium.

This was without doubt your intention. Note our conversation was about your hypothesis the DEW's were used to bring down the WTC. When I asked you for evidence you pointed to the presence of uranium. This is the only tangible source you have provided.


Get your story straight Max, are you saying that DEW's brought down the WTC and the physical evidence you have is depleted uranium in the dust or not? If not, I repeat my question. Where is your tangible evidence that DEW's were used to bring down the WTC.


x197 Maxwell C. Bridges : ~never~ suggested the weapons used depleted uranium

2014-03-16

Dear Mr. Peter Aveyard,

I know the difference between nuclear weapons of type fission, fusion, neutron, and depleted uranium (DU).

Within the framework of the WTC on 9/11, I have ~never~ suggested that the involved weapons used depleted uranium. "Depleted uranium" is your wording, not mine.

That you persist in applying this wrong association to me only furthers my impression that you are playing games. Prove me wrong. Find my exact reference to depleted uranium as it pertains to the WTC on 9/11 with a URL, or offer apologies.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "This was without doubt your intention. Note our conversation was about your hypothesis the DEW's were used to bring down the WTC. When I asked you for evidence you pointed to the presence of uranium. This is the only tangible source you have provided."

I am not going to do your homework for you, Mr. Aveyard. Suffice it to say, there is a big difference between "presence of uranium (in the dust)" and "depleted uranium (in the dust)." Look up "depleted uranium" and learn its exact meaning.

And for the record, two different sources who took dust samples recorded the presence of uranium and other heavy metals in the dust, as well as other elements whose presence in correlated quantities proves nuclear involvement.

Mr. Aveyard wrote: "Get your story straight Max, are you saying that DEW's brought down the WTC and the physical evidence you have is depleted uranium in the dust or not?"

No, you get my story straight and stop playing games to juke it into your own malframed views, Mr. Aveyard. I gave you a link.

I am saying that the DEW was nuclear powered, probably a variant of neutron devices (that are themselves fusion based and probably fission-triggered). They probably tweaked these neutron devices further to focus the energy at certain wavelengths.

Mr. Aveyard continues: "Where is your tangible evidence that DEW's were used to bring down the WTC?"

Obviously, Mr. Aveyard, you did not read the article on my blog that I pointed you to. Had you done so, you wouldn't be asking the question. Almost turns the question into an example of "busy-work" game-playing, whereby you have me scurry off to research and answer yours questions so that you can promptly ignore it.

Am I correct in assuming, Mr. Aveyard, that you believe the official story and the garbage produced by NIST about jet fuel and office furnishing fires weakening steel and resulting in localized failure that pulverized the rest of the structure at near gravitational acceleration? If so, no need to go any further, because it demonstrates a complete lack of comprehension of Newtonian physics. Gravity cannot accomplish both pulverization and near free-fall at the same time, so energy had to be added.

Assuming that you can acknowledge this fact about extra energy being required, then the question becomes what was the energy source that enabled this feat?

"Tangible source" of nuclear powered DEW begins with the energy requirements of pulverization and gravitational acceleration. To this we add that the destruction was not deafening loud, which any chemical based explosives and incendiaries would be. (If the nuclear devices are tweaked for enhancing the yields at specific wavelengths, it takes away from blast waves that would otherwise be very loud.) It progresses further that things like paper, flags, and people weren't ignited, yet lots of anomalous vehicle damage in a car park and along West Broadway hasn't got word one of an explanation from the government or even the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. And then there's the duration of under-rubble hot-spots that can't be attributed to diesel fuel, office furnishings, or even chemical based explosives and incendiaries without suggesting obscene amounts unspent from their original pulverizing purposes. You've already learned that the USGS and Paul Lioy et al measured uranium and other heavy metals in the dust, but did not venture any clarification or explanation for them. Were you to follow my link, you would learn about the tiny instances of scientific sleight of hand in numerous reports that were meant to buttress the false belief that nuclear weapons were not involved. Kudos to those reports for achieving the goals of their limited scopes (relating to benign health effects), but those very limited scopes and the methodologies appropriate for them did not make those reports suitable for making conclusions about larger scopes, like the involvement of nuclear means.

Don't be offended when I go off-line after this response and don't come back until next weekend. Spring break and all that jazz.

//


x198 Maxwell C. Bridges : Perpendicular Ejection from South Tower

2014-03-16

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1966711_10200996634318281_513147715_n.jpg
The image says: "Perpendicular Ejection from South Tower WTC-2 had to land along the Red arrow, somewhere along Broadway."

Talk about a malframed statement!

The airplane did not impact the tower perpendicularly, and all video evidence bears this out.

No, it hit it at an angle. And guess what? If you took the cyan line segment that goes from the engine on Church & Murray to the corner of WTC-2 and extended it out the other side, you will more or less get the angle that the aircraft hit the towers at.

//


x199 FB Participants ATW : who's mentoring you

2014-03-16

Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges Do your calculations also apply to the shoe in the picture? Or should we brush up on Operation Northwoods where they talk about dispersing parts (plant evidence)?

I would think long and hard about who's mentoring you.
7 hours ago · Like · 1

Maxwell Bridges Ms. Rae asks: "Do your calculations [for the engine] also apply to the shoe in the picture?"

The calculations apply to the shoe as much as they apply to the trash can. And you are making a mistake to assume that the engine, trash can, and shoe all came from the airplane.

For all we know, the shoe belongs to a photographer who put it there to give scale to pictures he was taking (which may or may not include this shot.)

It is noteworthy that a shot of the engine taken from a different direction shows neither the trash can nor the shoe.

//

Norma Rae wrote: "I would think long and hard about who's mentoring you."

Maybe only someone who is being mentored herself would come up with the notion that others are being mentored. Therefore, maybe she is the one who should think long and hard about who's mentoring her.

Were I to have a mentor, they would have told me to forget about 9/11 a decade ago.

//


x200 FB Participants ATW : radar tracking device on the missile

2014-03-16

Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges If they manipulated 9/11, then surely they could have put the radar tracking device on the missile that created the hole on the tower. That was a missile that created the hole.

https://scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/s240x240/10013956_10200996277109351_916231575_n.jpg

+++
Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges Why are you ignoring that the engine would have been redirected in a different direction after busting through Structural Steel Columns. Who put you up to propagating such bullsh_t? And I'm going to ask you now, did you ever take a course in physics or did Mackey teach it to you?

+++
Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges Why bothers wasting my Saturday night verifying your calculations when I already know it's total poppycock that an engine would not redirect itself after busting through steel columns and the absurdity that it would land under a scaffolding in an upright position. I had better things to do than fall into your trap.

+++
Norma Rae Oh Mr. Maxwell Bridges I do so like you in my group. You entertain us.

+++
Michael Arnold Mr. Bridges,
Even if the engine bounced off a building, I would expect to see a big divot or small crater. Not hard science, I realize.
I'm not a no-planer, but I do not believe pilots flew those planes due to speeds and maneuvers. Also, I concede that no-planers might be right. The video evidence is all very suspicious.
Norma Rae: as for AE and no-planes, my hunch is that they are not convinced through irrefutable evidence that it was no planes so they are just going with the official story on that point. It doesn't change the evidence of controlled demolition. They can't argue about planes if they are not able to prove what they say. Either way it's controlled demo.

+++
Brian Sheridan I am a definite "no planer" simply because there were no planes..... first TV broadcasts of the "2nd plane" shows the nose of the plane coming out of the other side, what else does anybody need .........

+++
Ronald Stacker Society has been dumbed down, Mr. Brian Sheridan. I know a few people who don't have a problem believing that the nose came through fully intact. Sad, is the most respectful way I can describe it.

+++
Michael Arnold I say this with respect: Are you saying some sort if high tech hologram was used ie The Ball? Also sound had to be projected. Not saying it couldn't be done.

+++
Ronald Stacker There was no sound.


x201 Maxwell C. Bridges : what poppycock direction

2014-03-16

Dear Ms. Rae,

You wrote: "Why are you ignoring that the engine would have been redirected in a different direction after busting through Structural Steel Columns."

And what poppycock direction does Ms. Rae think the engine would have been re-directed in?

And why is it so hard for her to believe that the angle of the plane's fuselage axis with the wall assemblies of the tower would be the same angle that an engine would exit the towers from the corner that its trajectory was coincidentally aligned with? Simple physics.

She writes in another comment: "Why bothers wasting my Saturday night verifying your calculations..."

I showed my work in doing the math. And it is very simple math and physics: high school level.

But Ms. Rae's lame excuse for not trying the math is: "... when I already know it's total poppycock that an engine would not redirect itself after busting through steel columns..."

Indeed, any number of different forces could have acted on the engine as it plowed into the towers and pushed a steel wall assembly out of the way which could have caused it to head a different direction. But it didn't. It flew a trajectory that was coincident with the fuselage's angle of incidence with respect to the towers. Given its momentum, this is not surprising. Why does Ms. Rae think it is?

Ms. Rae continues: "... and the absurdity that it would land under a scaffolding in an upright position."

Ms. Rae was encouraged to get an old pop-can, fill it with sand, and to toss it end over end into the air many times and observe how it lands. Agreed that the majority of the time, it will land on its side. But all it takes is a special flick of the wrist timed just right to get this can to land and stay on its end, and the first time it happens, it proves that such "upright absurdity" is within the realm of probability.

I will say this, however. The pictures taken of this engine and its audiences are for sure curious. One picture has a shoe and trashcan without dust (e.g., prior to a tower demolition), and then another picture has the dust over everything, except no shoe or trashcan. Why would the trashcan not be there anymore? The fact that it got moved before the dust came does exhibit how crime scenes were not preserved and that a fair amount of staging went on. The broken sign is another example where suddenly it is posed next to the engine.

I am amazed that no one thought of taking pictures of the impact point on the street (after bouncing off the other building.)

For what its worth, my contention is that an engine could have flown the requisite distance from its trajectory. But I leave the door open for it having some staging assistance to get it under the scaffolding.

My unfounded speculation is that the escaping engine and landing gear were unforeseen mistakes, because the plan was to have no parts of the plane turn up and be identifiable. Such identification could prove the aircraft wasn't the make and model of the alleged commercial aircraft, which in turn would raise all sorts of uncomfortable questions. Therefore, the crack teams were send to locate the ejected pieces and dispose of them. And then came the cameras and interrupted the work.

Ms. Rae writes: "I had better things to do than fall into your trap."

The math and physics weren't a trap, except for those who pedal premises that the truth from the mathematics contradicts. If the math is wrong, it can be fixed. Not addressing the math reflects poorly in many ways.

And then Ms. Norma Rae wrote the most curious things across several comments and a couple of threads.

+++ begin quotes


- "Who put you up to propagating such bullsh_t?"

- "And I'm going to ask you now, did you ever take a course in physics or did Mackey teach it to you?"

- "I would think long and hard about who's mentoring you."

- "I do so like you in my group. You entertain us."

+++ end quotes

"Feed my sheep" was the directive I got with regards to 9/11 when I embarked on my humble 9/11 activism many years ago. I consider myself an honest seeker of truth. Indeed, nuggets of truth are what I rescue from the purposeful disinformation efforts. I am a religious fanatic, and what I'm fanatical about the most is Truth.

It is noteworthy that Ms. Rae did not address my math and physics and did not verify it or debunk it, before flying off the handle and calling it "propagating such bullsh_t?" Most interesting.

I can honestly say that I never took physics in high school. Lots of physics courses were required for my engineering degree though.

Who is "Mackey"? Is he my mentor?

It is similar to "Craig McKee", who I do know from the internet because I've been active on his blog. No, not my mentor.

Were I to have a mentor, they would have told me to forget about 9/11 a decade ago.

Maybe only someone who is being mentored herself would come up with the notion that others are being mentored. Therefore, maybe she is the one who should think long and hard about who's mentoring her.

Take your time responding. Think long and hard. Write off-line. Don't flood the forum with individual comments. I won't be online until next weekend anyway.

//


x202 Maxwell C. Bridges : primary vector

2014-03-16

Ms. Norma Rae writes: "It doesn't matter what angle the imaginary 'plane' hit..."

The angle that the aircraft hit the wall does matter and is important, because that vector will be the primary vector of much of the mass.

Ms. Rae continues "... because the video shows the debris exiting perpendicular to the wall."

The very image that she posts shows crap coming out of three walls. Worse, a whole series of images from different perspectives shows at least two major objects flying trajectories that were perpendicular to none of the walls.

Ms. Norma Rae, who avoided looking into a simple high school physics problem on another thread thinking it was a trap writes so confidently: "if an imaginary plane hit at a specific angle, you can't extrapolate from there because you are FAILING to account for Crash Physics which sends everything in a million directions."

No, Ms. Rae is wrong. You can extrapolate from the aircraft's angle of incidence particularly when the objects in question have a dense mass and lots of momentum, like an airplane engine.

If the crash physics would have sent the engine another direction, I could have believed that, too. Why can't Ms. Rae believe that the vector it traveled after impact aligns with the vector it was traveling before impact?

Whoever is mentoring you, Ms. Rae, should inform you that going on your gut instincts regarding crash physics isn't nearly as persuassive as back-of-the-envelope calculations and reasoning based on real physics.

Ms. Rae hopes to trap me: "You failed to give me a scenario of how the engine grabbed the Murray and One Way sign."

It was a combination of being hit with the shoe and the trashcan that also came from the aircraft with the engine. [Sarcasm.]

The assumption you make is that the engine hit the sign. I think that this scene was picked over and manipulated from the moments it was discovered, as proven by the trash can and the sign and the shoe.

//


x203 Maxwell C. Bridges : the engine isn't my hobby-horse

2014-03-16

No, you cut the crap, Ms. Rae. At least when new information and analysis is brought to my attention, I consider it well and can change my conclusions based on it. Happened recently to get me from neutron nuclear DEW to Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons that have DEW and nuclear aspects.

The engine isn't my hobby-horse. I think that the scene was tampered with. You think it was staged. Let's go with that for a moment.

If they had the foresight to stage a smoldering engine, why didn't they get one that was correct for the alleged commercial aircraft?

How did they manage to get two large projectiles to launch out of the WTC-2, one of them having an exit vector in the same direction as the entrance vector?

And if it wasn't the engine and wheel assembly that flew out of the towers and were tracted by video, what were they and were did they go?

You're fighting hard to shoot down all supposition that real objects (e.g., engine) from real aircraft could do what they were practically observed doing (up to a point prior to being positioned under a scaffolding). Yet the physics tells us it is within the realm of probability.

You were fighting hard to shoot down the observed impact and damage as being non-compliant with physics, when in reality both physics calculations and experiments (Sandia F4, Mythbuster) prove that it was possible.

You were fighting hard to validate the wonders of holograms, yet even those who had more technical information that you had it handed back to them with proofs on why it wasn't scalable to 9/11 without its limitations being obvious.

Your physics has been argued from the gut, not from the equations.

Sure, I was duped by no planes at one point myself, but mine was all about pixel manipulation on the telly and did not involve holograms. Each and every time I tried to get holograms to fit, they failed.


x204 FB Participants ATW : would the trajectory be the same

2014-03-21

Norma Rae But if we ejected a billiard at 122 mph and we ejected a bowling ball at 122 mph, they would react very differently. I know for free fall, theoretically they would drop at the same rate. Hmmm. It is interesting that I can't find a formula with mass in it. I'll have to ask my engineer friends. Thanks Steve Grage you're probably right, I'm just not satisfied yet
Yesterday at 9:23am · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage If I ejected a billiard (horizontally) from 980 feet @ 122mph, would the trajectory be the same if I ejected a bowling ball with the same parameters? The gravitational force is acting on the object as it travels horizontally, so the one with the greater mass would not travel as far? Horizontally, the mass has to be a factor, I would think.
Yesterday at 9:58am · Like

Norma Rae Momentum. Body parts and big chunks of metal found at the same location 1400 feet away is impossible.
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1974994_10201014376081814_139427000_n.jpg
"Momentum = Mass x Velocity"


Norma Rae Is there a picture of the original landing gear that they supposedly found on 9/11 on TOP of 51 Park Place? Could this be that part and they were never able to pull it out that day for whatever reason???
Yesterday at 12:49pm · Like · 1

Steve Grage Negative Norma, again if you neglect air resistance, and eject a feather, bowling ball, cotton ball, or any object, you'll have the exact same trajectory.
22 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Can't be. Try throwing a billiard ball. and try throwing a bowling ball. They require different forces (velocities) to get them to the same spot.
22 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae It's only in free fall (vertical) that they will fall at the same time.
22 hours ago · Edited · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage, We are using those dimensions and being told those items landed there. The problem is they lied to us. So if we took a real life experiment and ejected a body part at 122 mph, it would indeed have a very different trajectory than that hunk of metal. We don't even really know what the real trajectories would be of the 'engine', 'wheel', landing gear. Mass has to matter in a horizontal trajectory.
22 hours ago · Edited · Like

Steve Grage Fun piece of learning for you to explore, do you know of a free body diagram? Draw one with any object in motion and you'll find gravitational force g acting down towards the earth, neglecting air resistence of course.
22 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges & Steve Grage the real question is how much do those objects weigh? Then we would be able to determine what velocity is required to get those heavy objects to land 1400 feet away.
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Nope, again mass/weight is not a factor.
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Nope, again mass/weight is not a factor.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Hmmm. I can't find any formulas with mass in them. Maybe you are right. I'll keep checking.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae But do you really believe that the body parts and landing gear would fly 1400 feet?
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Of course not, no collision with plane. Debris from the explosion is what was seen but don't trust videos. We know better.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Right, we know they lied. But if you ejected a body part, a complete body, and a landing gear at the same velocity, do you think they would land in the same spot?
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae The force required to eject a landing gear is much greater than the force required to eject a body part. They would not land in the same spot.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae So theoretically, they had the same forces applied. The lighter object would be ejected much further. Do you agree?
17 hours ago · Edited · Like

Steve Grage Be very close, air resistance is the only force to make a difference, and that will be different with different objects.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae No the weight of metal is a lot compared to body parts. (I have to go to the market right now)
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Sure, more energy to get object in motion but then there's Newton's first law.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Right, they don't give us weights on their planted evidence. That would be a nice piece of data
21 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage For a different purpose maybe, like collision with pavement, what stopped objects motion, etc.
21 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Now I know how to account for mass in a trajectory....substitute v=F/m....duh!
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10014699_10201016319810406_1682537393_n.jpg
"Distance traveled"


d = (v * cos (T)/g)(v * sin(T) + sqr((v * sin(T))^2 + 2 g y0))
g: gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/s^2
T = Theta = angle at which the projectile is launched
v: the velocity at which the projectile is launched
y0: the initial height of the projectile
d: the total horizontal distance traveled by the projectile

20 hours ago · Like · 1

Steve Grage LOL, not quite Norma Rae. Don't quit studying.
19 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Steve Grage You don't think I can substitute v with F/m? I'm quite satisfied with my answer. Clearly objects weighing different masses will require different forces to land them in the same spot. Throw a billiard ball with your hand. Now throw a car with your hand. I think you need to do some studying
19 hours ago · Like


Norma Rae Steve Grage I'm going to run some excel spreadsheet numbers for you. I'll show you that it makes a difference. Give me your best guess on what hunk that of metal weighs. And your best guess on a body part (arm).

Norma Rae's photo.
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/s261x260/1978759_10201016576456822_1643907474_n.jpg


19 hours ago · Edited · Like

Steve Grage I know you can't Norma, it's been a long time since I learned this. I don't remember what triggered my understanding. Force does not equal momentum, you can figure that by units. Yes, it takes more energy to get a larger mass moving than a smaller mass both going the same velocity. Different concept.
19 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage How about this example. Roll a bowling ball off a cliff at 10mph. Then roll a car off the same cliff at 10mph. Do they land in the same spot?
19 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage Ok, now advise what your units are (be exact) for the random numbers of F,m, and v. Are they the same on both sides (v=F/M)? You'll find the answer is no because F=ma not F=mv.
18 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Sorry, I'm rushing, I plugged in the wrong numbers. I'm trying to cook...
18 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae I better go finish cooking then I can do this thing right
18 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Ok, I'm back. Sorry about that. Not easy having to feed the family and calculate trajectories at the same time.
17 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Conclusion: The distance is inversely proportional to the mass. The greater the mass, the shorter the distance and vise versa.

Norma Rae's photo.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1.0-9/1924576_10201017571201690_1609613903_n.jpg

F=ma
v=(Force)(time)/(mass) = Ft/m


13 hours ago · Edited · Like


Norma Rae Steve Grage Imagine swapping out that baseball for a lead ball. The machine doesn't know the difference. Do you think that lead ball will travel just as far as the baseball? ... Absolutely not. Mass is in the equation when it comes to trajectories.

Norma Rae's photo.
14 hours ago · Edited · Like


Steve Grage Different concept. It takes more energy for pitching machine to bring lead ball to Vo. But if Vo is same for lead ball and baseball, yes, same distance traveled. You'll learn mass is not a factor.
9 hours ago · Like

Steve Grage your work above, nope, you can't just divide velocity v by arbitrary time t to get acceleration, Acceleration is a change in velocity divided by a change in unit time. In projectile motion, acceleration g is constant, as is horizontal velocity.
9 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae the change in time unit is 0-1 second.
4 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae It's Algebra: You have 2 equations. You can substitute v in the 1st equation with v=(force)(time)/mass. Now you can measure your trajectory based on varying masses.

Norma Rae's photo.
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1.0-9/1977158_10201019683934507_1648410083_n.jpg

force = mass x (velocity/time) = (mass x velocity)/time = momentum / time

v=(force)(time)/(mass)

A trajectory is dependent on mass. The distance traveled is inversely proportional to the mass.

4 hours ago · Like




Norma Rae

Norma Rae's photo.
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1969147_10201019753016234_36823698_n.jpg

Note: as you increase the time interval, the velocity will also increase. But the launch velocity decreases with heavier objects.)



4 hours ago · Like


x205 Maxwell C. Bridges : falls into that category of wrong

2014-03-22

Part 1/2

Dear Ms. Rae,

You mentioned at one point that you don't want to post (or keep posted) anything that is wrong. I regret to inform you that this thread and your comments on physics falls into that category.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Now I know how to account for mass in a trajectory....substitute v=F/m....duh!"

Incorrect.

Stave Grage properly pointed out the initial error that Ms. Rae then propagates from there and leads to a false conclusion. I will elaborate here and am endeavoring to be nice in correcting the error. This is not personal.

+++ Begin Error from Ms. Rae

[ok] F = ma
[wrong] force = mass x (velocity/time) = (mass x velocity)/time = momentum/time

+++ End Error from Ms. Rae

Acceleration is equal to the ~~change~~ in velocity over a period of time. Ms. Rae attempts to plug in a velocity. INCORRECT! DANGER, PENNY ROBINSON! DANGER!

And this is how the mass term erronously creaped into the generalized equation for trajectory. Almost everything in Mrs. Rae's calculation following this erronous substitution is wrong, including her conclusions.

WRONG: "Conclusion: The objects that weigh less will be ejected farther because the heavier items are slowed down by a greater downward force of F=ma."

WRONG: "Note: as you increase the time interval, the velocity will also increase. But the launch velocity decreases with heavier objects.)"

WRONG: "Conclusion: The distance is inversely proportional to the mass. The greater the mass, the shorter the distance and vise versa."

In the movie "Speed", Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock are on a bus that can go no slower that 55 mph. Imagine that they had a bowling ball, a billiard ball, a lead ball (the same size as the billiard ball), etc. They opened up the front door to eject these articles. If they held the objects out the door and simply dropped them, every single one of them would have a "launch velocity" (V0) the same speed as the bus. Period. By definition. All the same.

The "launch velocity" is what it is for any size or weight object. What changes for heavier objects is the amount of energy required to achieve the launch velocity and the amount of energy that the heavier object will have available to it during a collision. This may have been Ms. Rae's true point.

What happens is that the objects decelerate due to wind resistance from their launch velocity (V0). And the wind resistence is not dependent on mass but is dependent on surface area.

Here is the correct may to use that generalized equation in the 9/11 case.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1.0-9/10014699_10201016319810406_1682537393_n.jpg

d = (v * cos (T)/g) * ((v * sin(T)) + sqr((v * sin(T))^2 + 2 g y0))

g: gravitational acceleration 9.81 m/s^2
T: Theta angle at which the projectile is launched
v: the velocity at which the projectile is launched
y0: the initial height of the projectile
d: the total horizontal distance traveled by the projectile

Theta (T) in this case is 0 degrees, because the object is "launched" after breaking through the towers. Therefore, the sin(T) terms go to zero while the cos(T) terms go to 1, leaving:

d(x) = (v/g)(sqrt(2 * g * y0)) [(m/s)/(m/s^2)] sqr ([m/sec^2] [m])
d(x) = (v/g)(sqrt(2 * g * y0)) [m]

The launch velocity (v) in this case is actually ~unknown~, while the distance is supposedly known (1,400 ft ~= 426 m). Let's solve for velocity (v) and use y0 = 299 [m] for where the engine struck.

v = d * g / (sqr(2 g y0)) [m/s]
v = (426 [m] * 9.81 [m/s^2]) / (sqrt (2 * 9.81 [m/s^2] * 299 [m]))
v = (4179 [m^2/s^2] / (sqrt (5866 [m^2/s^2]))
v = (4179 / 76.5) [m/s] = 54.6 m/s (~= 197 km/hr ~= 122 mph)

Surprise, surprise. This initial launch velocity agrees with what I had earlier calculated. Namely, I separated the movement in the x-direction from the y-direction. I determined first how long it would take an object to drop under the force of gravity y0=299 [m]. Answer was 7.8 seconds. Using v = d/t where the distance to be traveled was 426 [m] and the time it had to be completed in was 7.8 seconds, I determined that velocity was 54.6 [m/s]. [The difference was that I was not using metric in my calculations.]

Conclusion: If the exterior wall assembly slowed down the engine from 500 mph to 122 mph and the engine slipped out the corner window on a floor without a center beam at about 980 ft, the engine could travel about 1,400 ft. It is believable that the engine came from a real aircraft.

// Part 1/2

Part 2/2

I am presently reading "9/11 Deceptions" by M.P. Lelong and am mining it for nuggets of truth.

Here is some divergent but relevant information.

Firemen walking up Vessey saw burning plane parts. West Street had plane parts and body parts. Cortland Street was "littered with plane parts". Vessey towards West had "body parts, baggage, clothes..." Firemen and other witnesses reported an engine at West Broadway & West Vessey, 300 ft (~= 91.4 m) and that it flew over WTC-6.

The numbers who reported seeing plane parts is significant. As for body parts, they could be attributed to victims from the impacted floors. The quotes about baggage, clothes, and airplane tickets, I'm not quite sure about. Mr. Lelong wrote his book by mining other people's work. Like me, he picks and chooses, and disinformation from other sources could easily make it into his derivative work.

I'm not very far into Mr. Lelong's book, but he seems to be promoting assistance on the aircraft (e.g., pod on plane being for a missile) to help bore an entry path and whose explosion may also have contributed to the "hurl backwards". Mr. Lelong attributes plane parts, people, baggage, tickets, and shoes as being "hurled ~~backwards~~" from the first plane hitting WTC-1, which videos do not show.

// End Part 2


x206 Maxwell C. Bridges : If we wanted to be exact about things

2014-03-22

Ms. Rae wrote in the picture: "Engine on Church & Murray. ~1,400 feet away from WTC-2 found sitting under a scaffolding in a bolted upright position. ... Hunk of metal allegedly from the plane found April 2013 at 51 Park Place, ~1,300 ft from WTC-2, wedged 5 stories doewn in a narrow gap. ... Wheel found at West & Rector. ~1,300 feet away from WTC-1. No indication on cement that it crashed there. Rubber not melted from the explosion. ... "

This is where Ms. Rae is being alarmist.

Allegedly, the aircraft that struck the WTC-2 going 500 mph had one of its engines pass through the tower and out its corner window (on a floor without the vertical beam in the corner window). The engine flew towards 51 Park Place where it damaged the roof before bouncing to the ground, where it tumbled under the scaffolding into an upright position.

If we wanted to be exact about things, the Park Place building was 5 stories tall. For the sake of discussion, let's assume each story was 12 ft tall, therefore the damage happened at 60 ft in the air.

Let's assume that the airplane engine exited the towers from the 80th floor, which we'll say was 925 ft.

Therefore, the engine fell (925-60 [ft]) = 865 ft, which means its time in flight was from Newton's equatios:

t = sqr(2d/g)
time to fall 865 ft = sqr((2*865 [ft])/32 [ft/sec^2])
t(865) = 7.3 seconds

Velocity is equal to distance traveled divided by time.

v = (1300 [ft] / 7.3 [sec]) = 177 [ft/sec] ~= 121 mph

This velocity is pretty close to what was calculated to go 1400 ft.

+++ begin quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51

During the attacks, the then-five-story building at 45–47 Park Place, between West Broadway and Church Street, was severely damaged. When United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center, part of the plane's landing gear, engine and fuselage came out the north side of the tower and crashed through the roof of 45–47 Park Place, and through two of its floors. The plane parts destroyed three floor beams, and severely compromised the building's internal structure. The damage was not immediately noticed during an exterior assessment. It was later discovered during an interior assessment. In April 2013, the New York Police Department announced that surveyors inspecting the building had discovered a 17-inch-wide piece, five foot long airplane part complete with Boeing identification number wedged in an 18-inch-wide alley between 51 Park and 50 Murray Street. Initially officials thought it was part of the landing gear but Boeing confirmed it was the trailing edge flap actuation support structure of an airplane flap from a Boeing 767. 767's hit both towers. A photograph of the piece initially showed a rope around it. Police said the rope was used by an officer who lassoed it to see the identification number. Boeing could not say which specific plane it was from.
+++ end quote

It remains within the realm of probability that the engine could have decelerated upon impact with the exterior wall assemblies from 500 mph to 122 mph by the time it exited a beam-less corner window from about the 80th floor to fly to 45-47 Park Place, to leave a piece of itself wedged between buildings, to bounce off and to the ground, and to tumble under a scaffolding.

Repeating what Ms. Rae wrote in her image: " ... Wheel found at West & Rector. ~1,300 feet away from WTC-1. No indication on cement that it crashed there. Rubber not melted from the explosion."

Assuming that the wheel made it through the WTC-1 (whose impact and aftermath we have only from one video perspective), the physics seem plausible that its velocity was slowed but still sufficient to travel the distance.

The "melted rubber from the explosion" doesn't frame things properly. The amount of time that the wheel would have been within an exploding jet fuel fireball was very short. (Ever pass your finger through the flame of a burning candle? Even the slowest you could do it and not be injured represents a time that was probably longer than the tire was in the fireball.) The tires of airplanes are used to high heat in short durations, because this is what happens during landings with the friction of first touchdown.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Maxwell Bridges I apologize in advance, but I seriously question your judgement and/or agenda."

Ms. Rae has not refuted my estimations on what the ejection velocity of an engine or tire would have been in order to travel their respective distances. Ms. Rae also introduced errors in her physics analysis that then led to blatantly wrong conclusions.

It isn't just a wheel and an engine. Lots of testimony collaborates that aircraft parts were found in many places around the towers, as I'm learning from reading M.P. Lelong's book "9/11 Deceptions" that he crafts from mining other 9/11 sources.

Ms. Rae's agenda apparently has been to dispute that real aircrafts hit the towers in order to prop up some other theory. However, the evidence for aircrafts seems pretty substantial, albeit the aircraft have never been definitively proven to be the alleged aircraft. Moreover, Ms. Rae's main alternate theory (e.g., holograms) has other major weaknesses.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. Real planes aren't my hobby-horse. But they are more plausible than the alternative theories at this point, substantiated by lots of testimony whose evidence would have been extremely difficult to plant on the scale and in the timing of their discovery.

//


Norma Rae
Norma Rae's photo.

https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1969390_10201010443303497_1655689155_n.jpg


March 19 at 2:03pm · Like · 1


x207 Maxwell C. Bridges : hard to fake in a short time frame

2014-03-22

Dear Mr. Grage,

It isn't just the engine and wheel assembly that must be planted. As I mentioned, I am reading M.P. Lelong's book, "9/11 Deceptions". He mines other 9/11 sources in compiling his derivative work. He has found many quotes of first responders. Here are my notes from the quotes:

- walking up Vessey, saw burning plane parts.
- West Broadway & West Vessey, engine part in middle of street.
- West Street: plane parts
- Dey St. and Cortland St. "littered with plane parts"
- Vessey towards West: body parts, baggage, clothes
- West St.: body parts

The point is, plane parts were identified (presumably in cases before the towers came down) that would be hard to fake in a short time frame, but not so hard to explain if the actual outcome of a plane.

Sure, Mr. Grage, if you want to doubt that an engine could go through a wall assembly and slow down from 500 mph to 122 mph in the process, fine. Maybe you'll have reason to go along with Mr. Lelong in his suspicions that the aircraft was enhanced with a pod to help plow the way with a missile. Would you believe in a real aircraft if that were the case?

All I know is that the amount of aircraft debris as spotted by many witnesses is rather convincing to me. Whereas Ms. Rae uses her gut to doubt that a projectile could travel 1,400 ft from the towers, the physics documents the conditions when it would be possible, and 122 mph seems neither unreasonable to me, nor too fast/slow for the smoking object captured on video.

//


x208 Norma Rae : complete lack of crash physics

2014-03-22


Norma Rae 2:23pm Mar 22
The complete lack of crash physics on the landing surface proves they didn't land there. All the evidence was gingerly placed there. They've been plotting false flags for a long time. They knew to plant evidence in strategic locations.
https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1474368_10201025738285862_1508098205_n.jpg


Norma Rae
Norma Rae 2:36pm Mar 22
Mr. Maxwell Bridges You can complicate it as much as you want and you can get your jollies on calculation after calculation, but I assure you, all you need is pure logic.


Norma Rae
Norma Rae 2:36pm Mar 22
Mr. Maxwell Bridges though calculations are important, let's not throw logic out the window.

https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1.0-9/1004873_10201025815967804_1164344837_n.jpg



Norma Rae 3:12pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges Since you are really good at calculations, can you determine what the mass of the object would have to be to get it to fly 1400 feet away? That would be interesting to see. I've got to run right now, but maybe I can look into it later.

Norma Rae
Norma Rae 8:38pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges Thank you for pointing out my errors. I don't take it personal :) I stand corrected on two items with I recognize.

I made the mistake to say v=F/m, I later recognized it and corrected it. The correct equation would be v=Ft/m, If you read the thread I corrected that.

The following statement I made is also incorrect: "The objects that weigh less will be ejected farther because the heavier items are slowed down by a greater downward force of F=ma."

Norma Rae 8:40pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges, I agree with what you are saying EXCEPT, all we are concluding is that a RANDOM OBJECT can land at that distance and that velocity.


What we have FAILED to prove is WHAT OBJECT landed at that location. Was it an ELEPHANT, A MOUSE, A CAR, A HOUSE......MASS IS CRUCIAL. If we worked mass into the equation, I bet it would not match the mass of the engine and landing gear.

There is no way in hell that landing gear and engine were tossed 1400 feet.

Norma Rae
Norma Rae 8:44pm Mar 22
Starting fires, they had that covered too.
https://scontent-a-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/10151425_10201027234763273_746780720_n.jpg


Norma Rae 8:46pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges I asked my 4th Grade daughter which object would fall a greater distance: a light object or a heavy object. She knew the lighter object would land further. Why? Because she used logic. 9/11 has messed with our ability to use our logic. I trust heavily on my logic.

Norma Rae 9:03pm Mar 22
Maxwell Bridges, if mass is not a factor then why wasn't the passport found 1400 feet away? You have got to recognize that we didn't prove a landing gear nor an engine could land that far. What we proved is that in order for a random object to land that far it would require that velocity. We must, we must incorporate the mass.

Norma Rae 9:04pm Mar 22
Oh and by the way, I hope you know the fireproof passport was also planted :)


x209 Maxwell C. Bridges : a distinction needs to be made on the levels of staging required

2014-03-22

Dear Ms. Rae, Part 1/2

Ten comments to my one? Okay, the three images meant that you had to have at least three comments. But surely all of the others could have been condensed or edited or appended at some point to one of the three? Ten, though, fits my definition of spam.

I am already a duped useful idiot regarding the stage-craft of 9/11 and how evidence was planted, of which the in-tact passport is one. I'd even swallow that the aircraft part found in April 2013 between buildings on Park Place was staged in an attempt to get a part with a serial number into the system. Ah, but Boeing was unable to identify the exact aircraft.

However, a distinction needs to be made on the levels of staging required (or not) at each respective scene, such as the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the WTC. I believe the Pentagon was staged. I believe Shanksville wasn't staged, which is its problem because it wasn't a plane crash, either.

As for the WTC and the topic of this discussion, my premise is that real airplanes were used, which means that staging plane wreckage in front of hundreds of witnesses is not required. What is required is when things don't go as planned, such as when a serial numbered engine is ejected from the towers, then it must somehow disappear. Failing that, the connection must be stymied to acquiring its make, model, and serial number to an aircraft other than the alleged commercial aircraft. If memory serves me, the engine was recycled without rigorous study and detailed reports on where it came from.

Ms. Rae wrote about calculating jollies: "[T]hough calculations are important, let's not throw logic out the window."

I agree, except that what you call "logic" is really your gut instinct and it is still leading you (and your daughter) astray. Calculations, on the other hand, adhere to logic in fundamental ways.

Ms. Rae asked: "Since you are really good at calculations, can you determine what the mass of the object would have to be to get it to fly 1400 feet away?"

Determination of mass is unimportant. A commercial airplane and a bird can both fly or glide 1,400 ft. A billiard ball and a lead ball of the same size could be shot from cannons with the same launching velocity such that they go 1,400 ft.

Mass does not play a role in determining how far it can travel.

Study the generalized trajectory equations again, because there is a reason why mass has been canceled out and doesn't play a role.

The one thing that does play a role and isn't modeled is wind resistance, which acts on surface area and affects momentum. Although a passport and a billiard ball can both be launched at the same velocity, the outcomes for the passport being able to go the distance depend on whether it stayed closed and aerodynamic throughout its flight, or whether it opened and caught more drag from the air.

Ms. Rae wrote: "I agree with what you are saying EXCEPT, all we are concluding is that a RANDOM OBJECT can land at that distance and that velocity. What we have FAILED to prove is WHAT OBJECT landed at that location. Was it an ELEPHANT, A MOUSE, A CAR, A HOUSE......MASS IS CRUCIAL. If we worked mass into the equation, I bet it would not match the mass of the engine and landing gear."

Mass isn't needed in the equation. Were it so, you would have found it in Wikipedia.

I think what you are missing, Ms. Rae, is the fact that damage to 51 Park Place was not trivial. How was it staged? Agents certainly didn't go up there with sledgehammers. Logically, it was hit with something heavy. Logically, its damage was first noted after the 2nd plane hit and before either tower was felled. Logically, the heavy engine, the video showing a smoking mass exit the towers, the videos and radar sets of the planes, and the many testimonies of seeing aircraft parts around the WTC suggest that they didn't need to stage the outcome damage; they needed to stage real planes to hit the towers precisely.

Ms. Rae wrote: "There is no way in hell that landing gear and engine were tossed 1400 feet."

That wasn't logic speaking. That was gut.

I'm sure you've seen the videos that show a streak going by the towers that is claimed to be an F4. Imagine that it was flying at 925 ft and only 122 mph. With the canapy open the pilot could drop the apple from his lunch or a bowling ball or his landing gear (that a mechanic booby-trapped), and they would all be tossed 1,400 ft before hitting the ground.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Starting fires, they had that covered too."

I've studied this in the past. Little evidence has been put forth to substantiate such booby-trapping. In the grand scheme of things, I fail to see how such fires would have been of strategic advantage and would in fact only serve to call attention to the coordinated fashion of events. These fires to me have more the appearance of unplanned side-effects that are such an embarrassment to the operation that they must be ignored in all official reports.

Ms. Rae wrote: "I asked my 4th Grade daughter which object would fall a greater distance: a light object or a heavy object. She knew the lighter object would land further. Why? Because she used logic."

El-oh-el, Ms. Rae. If you don't ask the question properly and if you don't understand it well yourself, you are sure to get the wrong answer. And you did.

Your wording here used the verb "fall", whereby both objects -- a marble and a billiard ball -- would fall at the same gravitational acceleration and therefore for any given period of time would fall the same vertical distance. If each were given the same launch velocity and the same launch angle, they would travel equal distances.

Ms. Rae wrote: "9/11 has messed with our ability to use our logic. I trust heavily on my logic."

You and your daughter prove your first sentence, at any rate.

// Part 1/2

Part 2/2

Ms. Rae wrote: "if mass is not a factor then why wasn't the passport found 1400 feet away?"

Steve Grage and I have both explained that air resistance is a factor.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Free-Fall-and-Air-Resistance
+++ quote
Air resistance is the result of collisions of the object's leading surface with air molecules. The actual amount of air resistance encountered by the object is dependent upon a variety of factors. To keep the topic simple, it can be said that the two most common factors that have a direct affect upon the amount of air resistance are the speed of the object and the cross-sectional area of the object. Increased speeds result in an increased amount of air resistance. Increased cross-sectional areas result in an increased amount of air resistance.

...

The amount of air resistance an object experiences depends on its speed, its cross-sectional area, its shape and the density of the air. Air densities vary with altitude, temperature and humidity.
+++ end quote

Ms. Rae wrote: "You have got to recognize that we didn't prove a landing gear nor an engine could land that far. What we proved is that in order for a random object to land that far it would require that velocity. We must, we must incorporate the mass."

You are correct that I calculated the required launching velocity from a specified hight for a random object to land a certain distance. This launching velocity was significantly less than impact velocity, so is in a reasonable range.

What has been proven is that:

- By two sets of radar data and 44 videos, a real aircraft was flying.
- By testimonies of dozens of witnesses and first responders, real aircraft parts were discovered around the WTC.
- By a series of pictures and videos, a massive part was observed being launched from the tower after impact traveling a velocity similar to what was calculated.
- By a series of pictures, damage was done to a Park Place building from a massive object.
- By a series of pictures (some staged), a massive engine was found upright under a scaffolding.

Ms. Rae, "You have got to recognize" that the case for faking the aircraft impact (at the WTC) is exceptionally weak compared to the case for real aircraft actually impacting the towers.

// Part 2/2


x210 Maxwell C. Bridges : distance and mass are inversely proportional

2014-03-23

Dear Ms. Rae,

You wrote: "So this is where I stand with distance and mass. They are inversely proportional. The lighter objects will fall further out than the heavier objects. Do you concur?"

No, I do not.

You are trying to insert the same error as before.

WRONG: force = mass * (velocity/time)

RIGHT: Force = mass * acceleration
RIGHT: Force = mass * (change-in-velocity/t)

Your equation below has no basis in reality as a result of the error above.

dg = Ft/m * sqrt(2gy)

Given that you start from the WRONG equation, your conclusions are daft.

Your "logic" fails you in concluding that given two objects with different mass, the lighter object will be lauched further out. You are confusing the effort required to throw a tennis ball with the effort to throw a shot-put, where naturally 4th graders would say that they could throw the lighter object further. But if the effort was handled (and a "don't-care") to get the objects to equal launching velocities, then which travels farther will depend on how the air resistence acts on its cross-sectional area and shape.

Two objects of equal mass but differing cross-sectional areas and shape, the more aerodynamic one will travel farther.

Two objects of identical cross-sectional areas and shape but of different mass, then what could play a role is air resistance introducing terminal velocity. Generally, terminal velocity is associated with the force of falling being opposed by air resistance (as a function of velocity and cross-sectional area), which at some point balances out. Because it is the force of gravity on the object that must be balanced, mass comes into play. Lighter objects reach vertical terminal velocity quicker than heavier objects (of the same size). The caveat to this is that the height must be sufficient for terminal velocity to be reached.

When talking horizontal movement through air, it is the momentum (mass * velocity) that is being opposed by air resistance as a function of leading cross-sectional area and velocity. Lighter objects (less momentum) have their horizontal velocities reduced by air resistance sooner than heavier objects (of the same size.)

The passport allowed to flap open and flip every which way in flight reaches terminal velocity sooner than a massive engine, so isn't going to go as far.

//


x211 Maxwell C. Bridges : illogical, unreasonable, and in cases flat-out wrong

2014-03-23

Dear Ms. Rae,

You are being illogical, unreasonable, and in cases flat-out wrong as you cling to the unsubstantiated premise of no planes at the WTC, that you waffle between them being holograms and missiles, or a combination of the two.

There are 44+ videos of the 2nd plane impacting, some of them quasi-real-time that your premise needs to doctor up. And here's where it falls short. Under the faking premise that you champion, one would assume that they all were on the same page with regards to what the alleged hijacked plane would be, so they would at least have inserted into all those videos the correct looking plane and planted all over the WTC plane parts from the correct make-and-model aircraft.

You write: "By asking my daughter which one would fall a FARTHER distance, that indicates a HORIZONTAL direction. I explained it to her in further detail. I summarized it in here since we all knew what we were talking about."

And you both still got it wrong, because the lighter object will not travel farther.

I wrote: "Steve Grage and I have both explained that air resistance is a factor."

Your snippy reply was: "Well, last time I checked we don't live in a vacuum."

Well then why didn't you include information about air resistance? It was because you didn't and still don't understand it.

I loved this quote from you: "And for being such an intelligent man and not being to acknowledge how preposterous the hunk of metal wedged between the two buildings, the engine under the scaffolding, and the wheel on Rector & West are, I am very inclined to believe that you have been assigned to cover-up the NO PLANES THEORY."

I've already explained what I believe the "preposterous the hunk of metal wedged between the two buildings" was: planted evidence to get a serial numbered part into the system as a back-stop.

The engine under the scaffolding was something I believe they were trying to dispose of, not plant, because it would expose the aircraft as not being the alleged one.

The wheel on Rector & West was from the 1st plane, where it would have had a clear shot (no buildings) to get down West Street, where upon it -- being a rubber tire and inflated -- could have bounced.

I am very inclined to believe that you have been assigned to PROMOTE the NO PLANES THEORY. And you've got squat. The best evidence of holograms presented by you or any other NPT is so full of limitations and holes, it could never be scaled up to handle what video evidence and eye witnesses observed. Worse, it is dependent on a cloaked aircraft (yet another technology) as well as deliberate malframing of the radar data.

Why is it so fucking hard for you to believe that the perpetrators -- who could afford missiles, who could afford nuclear devices, who could afford all sorts of explosives -- wouldn't be able to afford some real planes and wouldn't sacrifice them in the operation?

//


x212 Norma Rae : an infinite number of videos of this hologram

2014-03-23

Maxwell Bridges said "There are 44+ videos of the 2nd plane impacting, "
Well guess what, you can get an infinite number of cameras and take an infinite number of videos of this hologram. So your point that there were 44 videos is pointless.

Maxwell Bridges said "they would at least have inserted into all those videos the correct looking plane and planted all over the WTC plane parts from the correct make-and-model aircraft."

Well if it was only one plane, the videos would show the same plane, now wouldn't it. Yet, they don't. So you are ADMITTING that they AREN'T the same plane. You are admitting also that they are not the CORRECT make-and-model.

Maxwell Bridges said "The engine under the scaffolding was something I believe they were trying to dispose of, not plant, because it would expose the aircraft as not being the alleged one."

Why the hell would they want to dispose of the engine in that manner? Why would they want to expose the aircraft is not the alleged one. Aren't they trying to fool the world that Muslims hit the towers with commercial planes? You make absolutely no sense.
4 hours ago · Like

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges said "The wheel on Rector & West was from the 1st plane, where it would have had a clear shot (no buildings) to get down West Street, where upon it -- being a rubber tire and inflated -- could have bounced."

Bounced there....hahahaha...Can't get yourself to admit it's more likely it was planted there, But you're willing to admit that the landing gear & passport were planted there. You completed toss logic out the window when it crumbles your theory. What's your dealio Mr. Maxwell?

Maxwell Bridges said " it is dependent on a cloaked aircraft (yet another technology) as well as deliberate malframing of the radar data."

Oh really, maybe you should research cloaking. By the time it's in the public eye, it's been in the Top Secret World for years.

Maxwell Bridges said "Why is it so fucking hard for you to believe that the perpetrators -- who could afford missiles, who could afford nuclear devices, who could afford all sorts of explosives -- wouldn't be able to afford some real planes and wouldn't sacrifice them in the operation?"

Because I don't MANIPULATE the evidence to fit my theory. My theory gets formed based on the evidence.

And if they could afford missiles, then they could afford Holograms and Cloaking Jets. And don't forget, you were once a "fucking' hard head that believed in No Planes. Somebody manipulated you to revert backwards.


Atahan Ganduu once you realize there were no planes, how do you go back to believing there were? I think maxwell always believed there were planes

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges You didn't answer my question. If trajectory distances are independent of mass, then they could have planted a head light or an oxygen mask or a pencil or a wedding ring or complete seat or part of a seat, etc at 1400 feet and we should swallow that story too?


x213 Maxwell C. Bridges : the viewing angles alone already exceed the abilities of holograms

2014-03-23

Dear Ms. Rae, Part 1/2

Your understanding of holograms runs parallel with your understanding of physics and your abilities in logic.

The 44+ videos that I reference were from independent cameras all over the area, various distances and angles. In addition to this were many times this number of eye witnesses, also at various distances and angles. The viewing angles alone already exceed the abilities of holograms.

On top of this, you have apparently conveniently forgotten the glaring physical weaknesses of holograms, namely the surface on which the interference patterns from the laser are projected. Far from pointless, my dear.

I wrote: "they would at least have inserted into all those videos the correct looking plane and planted all over the WTC plane parts from the correct make-and-model aircraft."

Ms. Rae counters: "Well if it was only one plane, the videos would show the same plane, now wouldn't it. Yet, they don't. So you are ADMITTING that they AREN'T the same plane. You are admitting also that they are not the CORRECT make-and-model."

I admit nothing of the illogical confusion that Ms. Rae writes.

What I am referring to is the "pod on plane" that is a piece of (imagery) evidence proving the planes weren't the alleged commercial aircraft. For any who propose holograms (captured by this imagery) or imagery manipulation, then certainly the glaring "pods on plane" defect would be non-existent, because the hologram wouldn't have it, and the pixels would have been easy to tweak to mask out -- except that this tweaking extends to 44+ different videos captured by different cameras at different perspectives, and some of it was aired quasi-real-time.

I wrote: "The engine under the scaffolding was something I believe they were trying to dispose of, not plant, because it would expose the aircraft as not being the alleged one."

Ms. Rae writes: "Why the hell would they want to dispose of the engine in that manner?"

You don't get it, Ms. Rae. The launching of the engine through the one corner window without a beam was ~not~ according to plan. My bat-shit crazy speculation is that agents got there and were moving it out of view, but it was fucking heavy, still smoking hot, and getting them all dirty. To facilitate moving it, they managed to get it upright. They failed in their objective under the scaffolding and only partway to disappearing it into a van, before "rubber-necks" and "lookie-lou's" and their digital cameras noticed the anomaly and were all over it... In addition to innocent civilian servants not in on the operation but called in to assist with crowd control.

Ms. Rae continues: "Why would they want to expose the aircraft [if it] is not the alleged one."

Ms. Rae, step out of your box that says "agents were planting evidence" and step into the box that says "agents were trying to disappear evidence, but failed mid-operation." Because the aircraft engine would prove that the real aircraft wasn't the alleged commercial aircraft, the "upright engine under a damn scaffolding" suggests that their first efforts to tamper with evidence were attempts to disappear it. They failed, but subsequent efforts to spin the situation on the internet as a "planted engine" to further the woo-hoo "NPT at the WTC" disinformation campaign is still going strong in some corners.

Tripping over Ms Rae's logic, she writes: "Aren't they trying to fool the world that Muslims hit the towers with commercial planes? You make absolutely no sense."

This logic skewer's Ms. Rae's premises while supporting mine. Namely, the perpetrators cannot frame the Muslims if the aircraft are discovered to be something other than the alleged commercial planes that the Muslim hijackers boarded, which serial numbers from unplanned escaping plane parts would expose. The agents weren't planting evidence; they were trying to remove it.


I wrote: "The wheel on Rector & West was from the 1st plane, where it would have had a clear shot (no buildings) to get down West Street, where upon it -- being a rubber tire and inflated -- could have bounced."

Ms. Rae writes: "Bounced there....hahahaha...Can't get yourself to admit it's more likely it was planted there, But you're willing to admit that the landing gear & passport were planted there. You completed toss logic out the window when it crumbles your theory. What's your dealio Mr. Maxwell?"

"Bounced," Ms. Rae. It sailed most of the distance and probably impacted something associated with traffic flow along West St. and, owing to its irregular shape, moving parts, and inflated tire, bounced to its resting spot at West St. and Rector St. An unknown known in the planning.

The passport, however, is in a competely different class, and would have been something to be planted regardless of the massive objects that did escape their confines in the towers.


I wrote: "[hologram theory] is dependent on a cloaked aircraft (yet another technology) as well as deliberate malframing of the radar data."

Ms. Rae counters from her logical gut: "Oh really, maybe you should research cloaking. By the time it's in the public eye, it's been in the Top Secret World for years."

I have researched cloaking, Ms. Rae. Like with holograms, I understand better than you the limitations exposed by viewing perspectives.

I wrote: "Why is it so fucking hard for you to believe that the perpetrators -- who could afford missiles, who could afford nuclear devices, who could afford all sorts of explosives -- wouldn't be able to afford some real planes and wouldn't sacrifice them in the operation?"

Here's more Ms. Rae logic: "Because I don't MANIPULATE the evidence to fit my theory. My theory gets formed based on the evidence."

There's your problem. The evidence should be MANIPULATED as symbolic tetris-style evidence-blocks falling down to be placed into a theory stack with the smallest and fewest gaps. Disinformation vehicles have sucked up many nuggets of truth, many such tetris-style evidence blocks and spun them around to spin their yarns. In rescueing suck nuggets of truth, it can be necessary to turn them so they are viewed from a different perspective.

// Part 1/2

Part 2/2

Ms. Rae writes: "And if they could afford missiles, then they could afford Holograms and Cloaking Jets."

Ms. Rae, it isn't a question of affordability. It is and always has been a question of technical feasibility that would be fool proof at a large scale from many different perspectives. It wasn't there.

Ms. Rae plows on: "And don't forget, you were once a "fucking' hard head that believed in No Planes. Somebody manipulated you to revert backwards."

Indeed, I was, Ms. Rae. Nobody manipulated me except the discovery of fresh evidence and fresh analysis, essentially new information which permits anyone pause for re-evaluation of previous positions. Moreover, if I would have had Joshua Frozen's sequence of pictures showing the path of the smoking engine earlier in my 9/11 carousel rides (together with reasonably results from physics calculations), I would have been an even tougher skeptic of September Clues.

I was duped something fierce by September Clues, such a crafty and extensive work. Nuggets of truth still remain, but I discovered first-hand how deceitful they are.

Mr. Atahan Ganduu interjected: "once you realize there were no planes, how do you go back to believing there were? I think maxwell always believed there were planes"

I'm a sincere seeker of truth who goes where truth takes me. When new information is discovered, I am open-minded enough to re-evaluation positions and beliefs that I held and defended.

Ms. Rae writes: "You didn't answer my question. If trajectory distances are independent of mass, then they could have planted a head light or an oxygen mask or a pencil or a wedding ring or complete seat or part of a seat, etc at 1400 feet and we should swallow that story too?"

Ms. Rae, step out of your box that says "agents were planting evidence" and step into the box that says "agents were trying to disappear evidence, but failed mid-operation."

In asking her question, Ms. Rae exposes that she didn't take the time to read my comments and understand their meaning. Low mass items (head light, oxygen mask, pencil, wedding ring, airplane seat, etc.) had the confines of a second tower wall assembly to overcome and then the physics of air friction.

// Part 2/2


x214 Maxwell C. Bridges : I smelled you from day 1

2014-03-24

Norma Rae 12:26 pm: "Who do you work for Maxwell Bridges?" Written above a picture referencing Operation Mockingbird.

Norma Rae 12:26 pm: "I smelled you from day 1."

Norma Rae 12:28 pm: "Thanking you for proving that the neutron nuke is a f_cking diversion. You shill."

Norma Rae 12:42 pm: "Maxwell Bridges is a f_cking Paid Shill. Beware of him." A tagging on her wall.

What has got her panties into a twist? Cognitive dissonance. However, not in the sense of most of the public who have issues believing the government would have executed a false-flag against its citizens.

No, Ms. Rae's cognitive dissonance comes from having been duped, and duped hard, by woo-hoo theories that she now refuses to admit have cracks, foundation crumbling cracks at that.

Mark Twain wrote: "It is easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled."

Ms. Rae demonstrated not having the chops for math or science, for which she could be given a pass. But no passes are given when errors are discovered in her work ~and~ are brought to her attention, yet seemingly get ~repeated~ in brand-new top-level postings to give the carousel a fresh crank.

Examples include:

- Malframing the engine eject angle out of the towers as only 45 degree being possible.

- Merging of trajectory equations with F=ma that lead to totally wrong conclusions that don't even stand up to "gut logic."

- Promoting NPT at the WTC via holograms despite their limitations with regards to scale and physical projection surfaces, despite necessitating a cloaked aircraft, despite necessitating false interpretations of radar data, despite having no explanation for the large mass of aircraft that did exit the towers smoking, despite having no explanation for the damage to Park Place, despite the timing and logistic coordination needed to plant so much plane evidence...

If one were to say that three or four legs supported the "NPT at the WTC" premise, each of them has been shot out from underneath (like Monty Python's Black Knight), yet her "gut logic" has her convinced "'tis but a flesh wound and the premise is still viable." Just because she's open-minded to consider alternative explanations, it doesn't mean that all alternative explanations are valid.

So much evidence contradicts NPT at the WTC and would have been a logistics challenge to "plant" in the short window of time between impacts and tower destructions when first responders began arriving and noticing the aircraft pieces, some still smoking. Videos/eye witnesses record/report events on a scale that projected holograms cannot technically achieve despite what her guts tell herself military holograms are capable of.

The smoking engine that was ejected from the towers, had its trajectory recorded by several cameras from different perspectives, damaged a building at Park Place (very hard to fake), and was found at Church & Murray is pretty substantial.

Ms. Norma Rae has been spinning up a storm about the pictures showing the engine in an upright position under scaffolding. The reality is no chain of custody exists for the engine to certify how it got there, be it tumbling on the street after bouncing off the building or be it well-meaning citizens or evidence tampering agents exerting the final brute-force efforts to get it off the street and out of the way.

If Ms. Rae smelled anything about me from day one (which puts it into the "9/11 Debates" realm), it was that I am a very dangerous debate opponent in the figurative sense with regards to malframed arguments that are unsupported by properly applied math and science and that I might be inclined to oppose in a public forum.

The manipulation of evidence that I do is necessary to remove it from its deceitful malframing, to give it a proper framing, and to shed scientific light on it. At least when I twist something, it is to unspin the confusing windings imposed by disinfo agendas. I rescue the nuggets of truth.

Ms. Rae? Not so much.

If I am a shill, then I am certainly an odd one. Not only do I preserve and re-purpose my words, but such efforts demonstrate evolution in thought particularly when new information comes to light.

Normal shills don't do this. Any sort of legacy regarding their words is not in their best interests to keep, because it will undoubtedly be used against them. Errors can be fixed, but shills won't, because such errors could change the very viability of what they peddle. Deceit requires too much additional deceit to maintain. Deceit can only be fixed by purging.

Hence the beauty of being a shill on Facebook, because it doesn't take many spamming comments to push "inconvenient" comments into the "view more comments" realm. It doesn't take many fluff top-level postings to push old discussions completely out of view.

Ms. Rae's performance on her "All Theories Welcome" FB corner has been one grand carousel ride of spin and manipulation.

This FB forum needs me more than I need it, which is why many begged me to come back after I took my leave in late February. The first reason given had to do with the poor nature of Facebook for hosting debates and the ease with which they can be juked.

The second reason: "I am leaving because of perceived insincerity of regular participants and admins. I've had an "ah-ha moment" in my participation here, but very few others have. Most come in here with glib copy-and-paste and very little depth, and aren't receptive to where their positions need to be tweaked. Holograms and Woodsian DEW come to mind."

Although Mr. Philip Joy took this to mean him -- which it did in part --, the more flagrant example of insincerity in her persuit of 9/11 Truth comes from Ms. Norma Rae.

The FB group "9/11 Debates" was one side of a pincer -- the denier side -- while "All Theories Welcome" was the other extreme side -- woo-hoo crazy theories that can't be substantiated -- of the same pincer with the aim of muddying rational 9/11 thought.

//


x215 Maxwell C. Bridges : wavelengths of energy were on the order of atomic distances

2014-03-24

Dr. Blevins asked in a not-so-friendly manner (while interupting a flame war that Ms. Rae started): "Do you have anything to say about the extreme heat cause by nuclear bombs."

First of all, the phrase "nuclear bombs" is ripe for mal-framing. It is too easy to get sucked into the misperceptions of the media. Nuclear devices, particularly 4th Generation Nuclear Devices, have a much wider spectrum of how they are implemented. Just saying "nukes" gets people in a tizzle about massive heat-waves, blast-waves, and radiation based on drummed-in fear.

Secondly, variants of neutron devices were what I was championing originally, because by expelling neutron in a targeted fashion (like upwards), other traditional nuclear side-effects of a heat-wave, blast-wave, and EMP are reduced to tactical levels. Neutron radiation is gone at once, and when targeted DEW-like, it won't kill (life forms or) other tandem nukes in the demolition scheme. Traditional alpha, beta, and gamma radiation from a neutron device doesn't linger. If you don't measure it promptly (24-48 hours), you'll miss it. And low-and-behold, this is exactly the trick employed by most government or 9/11 Truth reports that try to give us the song-and-dance about "no nukes."

Thirdly, it came to my attention not that long ago about further trade-off's that can be made in the design of the device (which is still probably a variant of a neutron device.) They didn't care that the devices are only 50% efficient, because they have more energy than required. Throwing energy away as highly neutron radiation was one way to reel it in.

But 4th generation devices tweak the outputs even further and make other trade-off's. One such trade-off could be (speculative) further reduction of heat-wave and blast-wave by concentrating the energy at certain wavelengths, like proposed by Project Excalibur's x-ray laser and probably Casaba-Howitzer (from the 1960's and still classified).

I further speculate that if those wavelengths of energy were on the order of atomic distances, they might just lead to the molecular disassociation that Dr. Wood points out.

Fourth, I do not fully endorse that these devices were without some measure of high heat, as evidenced by the "steel doobies" (or wall assemblies rolled up like carpet rolls) and the amount of tiny iron sphere present in the dust. If they were configured to aim their wavelength energy in a cone aimed upwards, if their range was 10-20 floors, and if detonated alternately around the spire, they could miss each other as well as the spire (more by accident than design). The tactical heat wave could have been tweaked into a much smaller radius of say 5 floors, thereby allowing paper and things to escape unsinged when beyond that radius.

Fifth, I speculate that the duration of under-rubble hot-spots was caused by fizzled nukes akin to Fukushima or Chernobyl.

I make no claims on being a nuclear physicist. Were I one, my pay would be contingent on keeping secrets. The above I have sussed out of public sources, but it was the blatant omissions and misdirections of various "no nukes" reports that kept me on the search.

What is know for sure (thanks to Jeff Prager's analysis of the USGS dust samples) is that 9/11 was a nuclear event. This premise is only underscored by the countless things that the government did and did not do in the cover-up.

This is the link into 4th generation nuclear devices to prove what I've sussed out ain't pulled from my ass.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510071

The following is an article on my blog (that could become a rabbit-hole in discovering my evolution in thought and dealings with agents and trolls). It is important, because it documents the games that were played with various official reports that were meant to steer the public away from considering nuclear devices.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2013/11/nuclear-2001-09-11.html

Finally, it should be noted that I have waffled over the years in believing different premises, which is more of an indication that I was receptive to new information and modifying my views accordingly. I was and still am a strong champion of Dr. Wood's work, but I don't drink all her Kool-Aid.

Given that both Dr. Wood's website and her book stop abruptly and deliberately short on where they should have gone (into a review of nuclear means like the first link above) and that she doesn't get us to a make-and-model of the DEW device, let alone a serial number, then it surprises me at the hatred and brain-dead fawning of Dr. Wood supporters that prevents them from standing on her shoulders and taking it to the next level. If they were sincere, they would be all over these 4th generation nuclear devices and modifying their beliefs to span both DEW and nukes.

+++ quote

"If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don't know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you." ~Dr. Judy Wood

+++ end quote

Dr. Wood supporters forget that her collected evidence is what should be studied, and that even her words and analysis can be the distraction from seeing what the evidence is tell us.

//


x216 Maxwell C. Bridges : waste basket near the engine

2014-03-24

Other images before the towers fell showed the waste basket near the engine (as well as the shoe). That the wastebasket got moved to the street to put police tape around it is already evidence of tampering.

Ms. Rae was making lots of hay with the engine being "bolt upright". But when one studies the right-hand image and sees its configuration, it isn't that unlikely that this short, squat, solid engine could have tumbled and finished its movement on its tail.

After hitting Park Place, who's to say what spin could have been introduced onto the engine that could get it to tumble under the scaffolding?

Ms. Rae has often implied that the engine landed under the scaffolding as if it came directly -- do not pass GO, do not tumble -- from the sky, so her NPT premise had her harp about no impacts on the street. This really isn't known; I have yet to see images that show the street where the engine could have impacted it before tumbling into position.

Ms. Rae's pointing out where dust supposedly wasn't in that picture doesn't jibe with what I see, as if she were making it up.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/1780724_10202561180064515_1102873498_n.jpg

Explain how they damaged Park Place's roof as well as the large piece of smoking debris that rocketed that direction immediately after the impact. What was it and where did it go?

//


x217 Maxwell C. Bridges : speculating to high-heaven about the extent of them planting evidence

2014-03-24

That's very lame, Ms. Rae. You're speculating to high-heaven about the extent of them planting evidence (which I learned from M.P. Lelong's book includes plane parts along Vessey, an engine at West Broadway & West Vessey, plane parts on West Street, Dey and Cortland being "littered with plane parts", etc.)

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1661512_10202561178904486_236772259_n.jpg

I don't know where you got your quote, but if it is speculating about landing gear damaging the roof as opposed to the engine, then the source may not be all that reliable.

//

Ms. Rae, in other thread that FB has since buried, you posted a pre-dust image and were harping about whether the shoe came from the airplane as well as the engine, as per the trajectory equations. I replied that the equations applied to the shoe as much as it did the trash can. That image shows the trash can and shoe real close the scaffolding post. Don't see the shoe now. And the trash can got moved. Morevoer, those images didn't have the street sign next to the image either.

Yes, they staged and tampered, but that doesn't have to mean the engine was planted.

Your statements about dustless engines (from the backside) are more hype that even the pictures don't support.

And who's the stubborn one ignoring the damage to Park Place? Who had her "gut logic" trashed by two different passes through physics equations to prove what exit velocity such an engine would have? Who keeps saying that only objects at 45 degree angles could exit the corner windows of the WTC? Who completely munged up the trajectory equations by making an inappropriate substitution that led to bass-ackward conclusions? Who has started countless NPT threads yet can't get it through her head that real planes at the WTC were Occam Razor?

You should save your NPT premises to where they are valid: Pentagon and Shanksville. And just because those are valid for NPT, doesn't mean that all aspects of the operation had to be the same; that's another ploy. I believe that the whole NPT circus was created on purpose (by disinfo agents at September Clues) to distract from the Pentagon and Shanksville. By the time readers had been through the wringer of dubious "nose-in, nose-out, all imagery faked, etc." at the WTC, they'd be less tolerant of the considering such ruses where they were valid.

//

You're really spreading the disinformation. Here's a re-posting of your map.

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/1526244_10201036148266105_1718042067_n.jpg

Whereas two objects are seen coming from the corner, neither was straight out (red line) and neither was at 45 degrees (blue lines). You've skewed the perspective.

The cyan line, however, happens to match the large piece of aircraft that is seen trailing smoke. Yet you won't cop to it.

This is why you hate me so much. I'm screwing with your NPT agenda that you are paid to promote, eh?

//


x218 Maxwell C. Bridges : Heat may very well have been sacrificed in the design trade-off's

2014-03-25

Dr. Blevins,

Be careful of absolutes, particularly in an over-kill, highly-redundant operation with back-up plans to the back-up plans.

You wrote: "Maxwell, you appear to believe that extreme heat was a feature of the destruction of the WTC when it was not."

All in a matter of proportions. Heat may very well have been sacrificed in the design trade-off's that allowed specific wavelengths to be enhanced and channeled. Whether or not some heat remained as a side-effect yield is a moot point, because you can't substantiate 100% your confident and absolute statement "[extreme heat] was not [a feature of the destruction of the WTC.]" It could have been present and simply overwhelmed in proportion to the other yields. The arches, the horseshoe, and the "steel doobies" as tetris-style evidence blocks can be twisted to support both Hutchison Effects and a point-source of extreme heat.

//


x219 FB Participants ATW : some kind of plane can penetrate the WTC exo-structure

2014-03-25

+++ 2013-03-25


Steve Grage 7:40am Mar 25
I contend Mr. Maxwell Bridges is smart enough to know Physics better than most. BUT. He contends some kind of plane can penetrate the WTC exo-structure (1:20:22 link Physics 9/11), he knows it can't. He contends an airplane wing can slice through a steel perimeter box column (1:31:30 link Physics 9/11), he knows it can't. I also don't think he believes in the cartoon physics that must be in play to form the holes in the WTC (1:44:38 link Physics 9/11). Mr. Maxwell Bridges, please explain the structures and collision dynamics you believe that are contrary to what I present in video link.


+++ 2013-03-25
Tracy Blevins 8:25am Mar 25
Judy Wood's words can be ignored without penalty. The data she presents is solid. However, Maxwell, you appear to believe that extreme heat was a feature of the destruction of the WTC when it was not.

Tracy Blevins 9:48am Mar 25
The WTC was destroyed in a low temperature process. Nuclear explosions (each and every one of them, as far as I know) produce extreme heat. Do you know of any nuclear explosions that do not produce extreme heat?

Tracy Blevins 9:50am Mar 25
If there were any nukes that did not produce extreme heat, then I would not be able to excluded them based on the low temperature destruction of the WTC. I'd probably be able to exclude them based on the long term fuming (because nukes don't do that, either).

Tracy Blevins 9:52am Mar 25
I like how you say I "can't" substantiate my claim. Let me ask you, Maxwell, do you know my argument that leads to the conclusion of a low temperature process? If not, then you have no right to make this claim. "I have no idea what you're saying, so you must be wrong!" is a weak argument.

Tracy Blevins 9:58am Mar 25
One of the things I understand more than any other single topic is heat. My PhD is in biomedical science, which is not much more than specialized chemistry. Thermodynamics has been a subject of many hours of my time spent in classrooms and at the laboratory benchtop. Nobody can fool me about heat, at least, not for long. It did not occur to me that the WTC was destroyed in a low temperature process until about 48 hours after the attacks, but the moment I saw my acquaintance who survived the dust cloud without burns, I knew it wasn't heat. The thing about heat is that it acts the same way no matter how it is produced. If the process that caused the dust cloud was hot, then the dust cloud would have been hot, but it wasn't.


x220 Maxwell C. Bridges : step outside the box that says the plane has to be the alleged commercial aircraft

2014-03-25

Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "[Mr. Maxwell Bridges] contends some kind of plane can penetrate the WTC exo-structure (1:20:22 link Physics 9/11), he knows it can't."

No, I know it is possible. Step outside the box that says the plane has to be the alleged commercial aircraft. Lots of evidence -- from the speed and precision at low altitude, to the impossible cellphone calls, to wrong make-and-model engine escaping the tower, to the pod underneath the plane -- suggest that the plane was not the alleged commercial aircraft.

Therefore, it is foolish to assume that no other enhancements could be undertaken on the plane with regards to its strength or with regards to its abilities. Wild-ass speculation, if the pod was a laser, maybe it could have been used to help soften the entry.

Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "[Mr. Maxwell Bridges] contends an airplane wing can slice through a steel perimeter box column (1:31:30 link Physics 9/11), he knows it can't."

No, I know it is actually probably.

First off, what you label "slicing" isn't technically that across the profile of the wing on the towers. Look carefully at the images and what you'll see are:

- Wall assemblies that broke at the designed-in failure points of bolts.
- Wall assemblies that were pushed in.
- Box columns of wall assemblies that were bent out of the way.
- Aluminum cladding getting sliced or knocked off but leaving a shadow and an optical illusion of deeper slicing.
- Box columns of wall assemblies that were made out of 1/4" steel plates formed into 14"x14"x3-story columns and that were indeed sliced.

If all of the box columns were truly sliced through, yes, that would be one large energy amount. But they weren't, and the damage inflicted required less energy.

Secondly, the wings did have energy. To be sure, the kinetic energy of the plane traveling at 500 mph had 25 times the kinetic energy of a plane coming in for a landing at 100 mph, or 625 times the kinetic energy of a plane involved in a 20 mph traffic accident on the ground.

Thirdly, the wall assemblies did not create an unbroken surface (different from the Sandia F4 test). 50% of the surface was ~0 resistance window slits, which would have allowed sliced wings inside unhindered, as proven by the Mythbuster Rocket-Slowplow. The same video also shows the equal-and-opposite nature of the forces. Even as the wings are decimated, they transfer energy into the impacted structure sufficient for box columns to be sliced, when not bent or pushed out of the way.

Of course, I went over this before. Next time someone cranks the carousel, I'll give the GOTO link.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2014/03/early-adopter-fourth-generation-nukes.html#x139

Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "I also don't think he believes in the cartoon physics that must be in play to form the holes in the WTC (1:44:38 link Physics 9/11).

When you understand the physics and have truly studied the evidence, it isn't cartoonish. The damage has distinct features. And to not ackowledge this and to sweep everything together is a game tactic and sophomoric.

Mr. Steve Grage wrote: "Mr. Maxwell Bridges, please explain the structures and collision dynamics you believe that are contrary to what I present in video link."

I did not watch your video due to its time-suck (~2:42 hours). I did fast forward to the provided indices to see what was there. Didn't tell me what I didn't already know or what I didn't already address.

//


x221 FB Participants ATW : a realistic trajectory

2014-03-26

https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1.0-9/1606849_10201034729030625_1746197525_n.jpg

Norma Rae 7:13pm Mar 25
Maxwell Bridges Look at this photo. ZOOM into the rear of the engine. It is DUST FREE. They weren't smart enough to DUST the REAR.
https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1379512_10201041314635261_44239074_n.jpg


Norma Rae 9:21pm Mar 25
Maxwell Bridges You didn't prove that anything flew out of that tower. The only thing you did was to calculate an exit velocity. For you to conclude that it proves the engine exited, shows such carelessness on your part and proves you did not go to college and earn a degree. A degreed person knows you do not draw such an irresponsible conclusion. Every piece of evidence indicates the engine was planted there. I've showed you a lot. And now the picture from the Detective proves the debris was staged.

Norma Rae 9:34pm Mar 25
Maxwell Bridges Whoever estimated the trajectory made it too VERTICAL. This is not how nature works.
They MANIPULATED the trajectory to fit their THEORY.
In real life the part to the left would have also been hit.
https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10155386_10201041762886467_921126326_n.jpg


Norma Rae 9:38pm Mar 25
Maxwell Bridges There must be a software that you can enter a height and distance and it can create a realistic trajectory. then we could see the angle at which it makes towards the end. The on on the picture you provided is almost at a 90 degree angle.


Norma Rae 9:50pm Mar 25
The trajectory was drawn almost VERTICAL to fit the damage.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1408668326044814/permalink/1432548486990131/

Tracy Blevins 9:29pm Mar 25
I want to comment on the concept of providing calculations for the "proper" application of physics. You're mixing two things in together, when they are distinct from each other. Providing calculations means nothing at all, if the physics isn't right. You tried to slide that one in there, Max. Calculations can be provided ad nauseum for any theory.

Norma Rae 9:54pm Mar 25
I also posted this on another thread. The trajectory that Maxwell Bridges is relying on is not consistent with nature. The trajectory is almost at a 90 degree angle. The data was manipulated to fit their theory.

Norma Rae 9:55pm Mar 25
Things falling near the towers would have an almost 90 degree trajectory. But at 1400 feet away, it would be pretty tight.

Norma Rae 9:56pm Mar 25
Trajectory. As you get further out, the angle at the bottom gets tighter.

Tracy Blevins 9:58pm Mar 25
I never was interested in studying any aspect of a plane theory. From the moment I saw the damage on the TV, I knew an airplane didn't destroy the WTC, so why study airplanes? After a dozen years, I'm still waiting for proof that hijackings took place.

Norma Rae 10:00pm Mar 25
My family still thinks commercial planes hit the towers. I think that's why I have an obsession to prove they weren't....

Norma Rae 10:31pm Mar 25
Maxwell Bridges wrote "And she posted all of these divergent threads because her argument for NPT at the WTC were being beaten, bad. It ain't my hobby-horse, but that doesn't mean errors in her analysis shouldn't be refuted with the truth."

The reason I start a new thread is because I feel the meme is important enough for everyone to see. When threads get so long the important stuff gets buried.

Steve Grage 11:14pm Mar 25
Mr. Maxwell Bridges contends he knows an airplane wing can sever a steel box column as evidenced by Mythbusters Rocketsled video below. So perhaps we're to believe this is an ah-ha moment when we advise the solid steel wedge with two tons of reinforcing steel structure is nothing like that of an airplane wing. Plus a car (<two tons) is not representative of a 500,000 ton WTC in bedrock. So Mr. Bridges, again, I believe you know better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

Norma Rae 11:35pm Mar 25
Steve Grage I tried to make Maxwell Bridges understand that the car getting sliced is what should have happened to the plane getting sliced. But he is adamant he is right, and we're all wrong. Oh well. We tried.

Philip Joy 3:06am Mar 26
Maxwell Bridges if your theory is correct which I'm open to, and the planes were hi-tech and strong and weaponized (I'm not trying to parody, so sorry if that's not quite the words you would use) I am rather uncertain whether such a plane could actually fly. To have wings strong enough to cut through WTC 'wheatchex' plus the necessity to go at the speed we saw, is such a power-weight ratio even possible. The thing would have to have been solid alluminium, a plane sized bullet. I may lack imagination, but what you say is stretching it a bit for me. Could you offer more details?

Tracy Blevins 6:59am Mar 26
Planes are not built to withstand even the tiniest crash.


x222 Maxwell C. Bridges : slide in there

2014-03-26

Dr. Blevins writes: "Providing calculations means nothing at all, if the physics isn't right. You tried to slide that one in there, Max. Calculations can be provided ad nauseum for any theory."

Agreed. However, what Dr. Blevins is trying to "slide in there" is that she hasn't done any of the math or proven/disproven any of the physics (of the trajectory) to be wrong (nor the physics of 4th generation nuclear weapons.) Worse, she comes in late to the debate about why they were even brought up.

As one of several weak pillars supporting Ms. Rae's NPT (at the WTC) premise, Ms. Rae had been using her "gut logic" to make repetitive postings about how it was "impossible" for an engine to get from the WTC to Church & Murray about 1,400 feet away.

Simple high school physics was applied to this. Vertical movement due to the force of gravity was separated from lateral movement from its momentum to determine how long it would take an object to fall from the impact height to the ground: ~7.8 seconds. [I used the height of 925 ft which came from the impact at the 80th floor and that each floor was 13 ft. These assumptions of course can be refined further, but do not take away significantly from the results.]

Then I reasoned, if the object achieved a lateral distance of 1,400 ft in that ~7.8 seconds it took to fall to the ground, how fast was it moving when it exited the towers? My answer was 122 mph. [To make it more accurate, one would need to take into consideration the distance to Park Place and the height where damage was sustained, which presumably would increase slightly the minimum exit velocity, as well as air resistance.]

This 122 mph number was not spot-on, but was sufficiently in the ball park to debunk Ms. Rae's "gut logic" that said it would have been "impossible" for a dense object from the aircraft to go that distance (more than three football fields.)

Although not mentined at the time, it actually debunked a second misbelief touted by Ms. Rae, namely "the lack of crash physics." The impact velocity was ~500 mph, while the exit velocity was roughly calculated at ~122 mph. The difference in velocity indicates the amount of kinetic energy consumed in the crash, as expected by physics. Also, the ejection vector was pretty close to the impact vector, which can happen in collisions. Nothing "crash physics defying" about it.

To counter this, Ms. Rae finds (but doesn't credit) a generalized equation for trajectory. Before I had the time to run the numbers on it to determine that it and my previous calculations were spot-on in agreement (122 mph, neglecting Park Place & air resistance), Ms. Rae is perverting that equation by making an improper substitution [that interestingly Dr. Blevins does not chime in on], which then brings Ms. Rae to the total erroneous conclusion that -- all else being equal -- a light object will travel further than a heavy object. WRONG. Without air resistance, they travel the same distance. With air resistance, the heavier object travels further because it has more kinetic energy to counteract the air resistance (which is mostly dependent on velocity and surface area of leading edge.)

On a different tangent at a different point in time, Ms. Rae claimed that an engine would not fit through the angled corner windows, and she references an image of flaming destruction that shows a corner window with a vertical beam while the window below it had debris blocking it. However, construction images showed that every other floor had a vertical beam in the middle of the angled corner window. Thus, the engine could easily have passed through window not having a vertical beam. Ms. Rae countered, however, that it was full of debris while discounting that the engine exited ~before~ the window got blocked with other debris from the airplane and office.

On a different tangent at different point(s) in time, Ms. Rae posted a map of the WTC with a red line perpendicular to the tower (from the corner) and another red line other at 45 degrees. A cyan line segment was drawn from the corner to Church & Murray. Were the cyan line segment to be extended, it would be parallel with the angle of incidence of the plane on the towers. [The plane's impact was not perpedicular.]

Ms. Rae claimed that ejected debris from the window could only happen at 45 degrees. WRONG. In billiards, a ball can be sunk into the corner pocket from angles other than 45 degrees. The engine in question had many different angles of attack whereby it could pass cleanly through the angled corner window without a vetical beam.

At other points in time, Ms. Rae claimed from looking at 2D images of a 3D event that two objects were ejected from the tower, one of which was on her neatly drawn perpendicular line and another on her neatly drawn 45 degree line. She claimed that because the engine was found along the cyan line -- extension of its original vector -- and not one of her neatly drawn red lines at 90 or 45 degrees, it was planted. WRONG.

On a different tangent from Mar 25 9:54 pm, Ms. Rae refers to an image of Park Place. "The trajectory that Maxwell Bridges is relying on is not consistent with nature. The trajectory is almost at a 90 degree angle. The data was manipulated to fit their theory." 9:55pm "Things falling near the towers would have an almost 90 degree trajectory. But at 1400 feet away, it would be pretty tight."

This is precious given the number of hyped statements and errors in the mark-up that Ms. Rae's puts into her images, many of which she not only hasn't corrected but has also has propagated further in new threads and new places.

First of all, the image and its mark-up aren't mine. Secondly, I don't rely on it to show anything except that Park Place top floor sustained damage, and it is consistent with the directional vector of the ejected engine, which was found nearby. Thirdly, when Ms. Rae with her "gut logic" writes "pretty tight", I think what Ms. Rae meant was the angle of impact on the Park Place would be shallow. WRONG.

If we assume the height of Park Place was 125 ft and the launch height was 925 ft [these numbers can be tweaked], then the engine dropped 800 ft in ~7 seconds. If we assume the launch velocity was 122 mph [~179 ft/s], then at the time of impact the x-component of the velocity vector was ~179 ft/s while its y-component from gravity was ~244 ft/s, making its impact angle 52 degrees. For the purposes of the rendering (which I had nothing to do with), 52 degrees is closer to 90 degrees than it is to 0 degrees.

Ms. Rae wrote more "gut logic" at 9:56pm: "Trajectory. As you get further out, the angle at the bottom gets tighter." WRONG.

Assuming a 0 degree launch angle from a high launch height, "as you get further out" implies a longer flight time. A longer flight time implies more time that gravity can act on it. The more time that gravity acts on it, the more its exponential nature as the y-component of the velocity vector (at impact) can potentially exceed the x-component (launch velocity), resulting in a steeper and steeper angle at impact.

At other points in time, Ms. Rae claims that all of the aircraft debris was planted. Not that I haven't come across contradictions to Ms. Rae's beliefs before, but with the topic fresh in my mind as I read a new 9/11 book, first responder testimoney about airplane debris along Vessey, at Vessey & West, on Dey, on Courtland, etc. really stands out.

Ms. Rae wrote 9:21pm Mar 25: "Maxwell Bridges You didn't prove that anything flew out of that tower."

I don't, but the images do. What sort of game are you playing that you ignore the several images from different perspectives of a massive object trailing smoke coming from the corner and flying towards Church & Murray.

Ms. Rae continued: "The only thing you did was to calculate an exit velocity."

No, I calculated that what you claimed was "impossible" was indeed possible.

Ms. Rae continued with her stupid "gut logic": "For you to conclude that it proves the engine exited, shows such carelessness on your part and proves you did not go to college and earn a degree."

No, my conclusions were based on (1) radar data that pinged off of something real, (2) a massive object ejected from the towers leaving a smoke trail and headed toward Park Place, (3) damage to Park Place, (4) an actual engine found at Church & Murray next to Park Place, (5) the physics trajectory calculations that support the possibility of it all, and (6) first responder testimony of air plane parts -- some still smoking -- all around the WTC as they were arriving.

Ms. Rae continued: "A degreed person knows you do not draw such an irresponsible conclusion."

We thank Ms. Rae for outing herself as having no degree. I consider all of her conclusions and antics here on FB irresponsible.

Ms. Rae continues with her wishful thinking: "Every piece of evidence indicates the engine was planted there."

... Except all of the actual evidence that Ms. Rae ignores as well as the deceit that cons her into believing in NPT via holograms, cloaked planes, faked radar data, etc.

Ms. Rae continues: "I've showed you a lot. And now the picture from the Detective proves the debris was staged."

Ms. Rae has misinterpretted a lot and totally under-estimates the amount of plane debris discovered by reliable eye-witnesses all around the WTC before either tower came down. Not so easy to stage.

With all things 9/11, the best someone can say is that they tampered with the evidence.

On a different tangent at different point(s) in time, Ms. Rae and others were championing the dubious work of Mr. Richard Hall and his premise of holograms. The crumbling pillars of this premise begins with discrepancies between two sets of radar data that actually represent within tolerances a co-linear flight path and is in agreement with 3D modeling of most of the videos of the 2nd plane. Preying on the science-challenged, Mr. Hall claimed that the consistent offset between the base positions given by each set of radar data meant that the real plane supposedly missed the towers and it was cloaked. The more accurate radar data that depicts a flight path into the towers, Mr. Hall claimed was faked to provide cover for the hologram that the cloaked plane was projecting.

I've done extensive arm-chair research into holograms beyond what Mr. Hall, Dr. Fetzer, Ms. Rae, or anyone in this forum has ever offered up as substantiation that holograms could be projected. All required a surface for it to be projected on (in some cases glass), which is a significant physical limitation. All had issues with regards to a narrow viewing angle over which the hologram was "convincing," stemming in part from what the hologram interference has to be projected on. Eye witnesses and 44+ videos from many different points of view and viewing angles exceed by a wide margin what the best hologram technology can achieve today, ~13 years later. [The "gut logic" continues: "But the military has technology decades in advance of what we know about."]

Cloaking technology today is further along than holograms but still has limitations on viewing angles over which the cloaking is "convincing". The 9/11 application exceeded what cloaking can achieve today. [The "gut logic" continues: "But the military has technology decades in advance of what we know about."]

Readers: Don't get me wrong. I'd like to be duped by NPT at the WTC, and specifically by holograms on 9/11. It just isn't technically feasible and is grossly contradicted by the evidence, even the engine at Church & Murray.

For the record, in the past when I was in the NPT camp, it wasn't holograms that had me duped but the prospect of digital manipulation of imagery, some of it quasi real-time. A cornerstone of that argument was that the 2nd plane from various videos appeared to be flying different vectors, indicating to the September Clues crew that the video manipulation got screwed up. That cornerstone was shot to hell by a video that did 3D modeling of most of the videos to prove the flight vectors were all the same. [Incidentally, this video was played on Rich Hall's episode about holograms.]

Be this as it may, after all pillars to Ms. Rae's NPT/Hologram premise were addressed and knocked out, Ms. Rae starts calling me a "shill" in several places and says that I am out to smear her.

Mr. Steve Grage references the Mythbuster's Rocket-Snowplow video: "we're to believe this is an ah-ha moment when we advise the solid steel wedge with two tons of reinforcing steel structure is nothing like that of an airplane wing. Plus a car (<two tons) is not representative of a 500,000 ton WTC in bedrock."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xQTCsDQ8E

Mr. Grage presumably has had some physics instruction in the past. So it is rather disturbing that he misrepresents why I find the rocket-snowplow important, and why he doesn't do the transposition that physics allows.

Namely, the video shows the steel wedge moving and the car stationary. However, physics allows us to transpose this in our minds as "car moving and steel wedge stationary." Moreover, the car represents the airplane wing, while the steel wedge represents a steel box column of one of the wall assemblies.

The car is split in half by the wedge, just as wings of the WTC aircraft were sliced and diced by the box columns. Had the car been in motion, its two halves would have remained in motion, albeit slowed.

More importantly, the steel wedge was decimated even as it sliced the car. In other words, even while the impacting portions of the wings were being decimated, they transferred energy into the box columns. Some were pushed, some were bent, and some were destroyed at that impact line.

I find it disgraceful that the damage to the wall assemblies isn't qualified. Everyone talks about the box columns being sliced, implying that this happened over the entire profile of the airplane, and further implying by their stilted language that the box columns were 14"x14" of solid steel. [They weren't. They were 1/4" sheets formed into 14"x14" box columns.]

Astute observers need to separate where the fuselage and engines impacted from the other areas hit by the wings. Further, they need to qualify what was pushed out of the way, what was bent out of the way, what was actually sliced, and what just had marks.

When blatant errors are found in one's work, it does make one look like an idiot. But not for long. Errors can be corrected, beliefs modified, and apologies offered for having led others astray. This is the course a rational, honest person would take.

If the person is rational but dishonest or with a deceitful agenda (which I believe NPT at the WTC is), errors aren't corrected, beliefs aren't modified, and apologies aren't offered.

Philip Joy wrote 3:06am Mar 26: "Maxwell Bridges if your theory is correct which I'm open to, and the planes were hi-tech and strong and weaponized... I am rather uncertain whether such a plane could actually fly. To have wings strong enough to cut through WTC 'wheatchex' plus the necessity to go at the speed we saw, is such a power-weight ratio even possible. The thing would have to have been solid alluminium, a plane sized bullet. I may lack imagination, but what you say is stretching it a bit for me. Could you offer more details?"

As with the others in this group, Mr. Joy misrepresents the damage and what it was composed of, which then in turn has him misrepresent what would be required of the aircraft.

Whether or not the aircraft would have to be souped up, I don't know. But if we know the plane was not a commercial plane owing to many pieces of evidence (like the cellphone calls working that couldn't work, like the make-and-model of the discovered engines), then the spectrum is rather large as to what could (or would have to) be done to achieve what was observed.

NPT at the WTC using holograms is dead, as far as I'm concerned. Get some new information to thoroughly substantiate it, or you must concede and give up this point, because the weight of the evidence and analysis is against you.

Give it a rest, because all you're really doing is purposely distracting from the valid instances of NPT at the Pentagon (with respect to an actual crashed plane) and NPT at Shanksville.

//


x223 Maxwell C. Bridges : rocket-wedge

2014-03-27

I stand corrected about the wedge ~not~ breaking into pieces until it hits the barrier. What had stuck in my mind was them being unable to find pieces of the wedge afterward (due to its decimation from hitting the wall) and also that the wedge deformed (4:12 to 4:16).

What remains relevant to 9/11 is that the crash physics observed was the car being sliced. The halves of the car did move backwards slightly, but the car as a whole did not bounce off of the wedge. Transposed (e.g., car in motion, wedge stationary), the car's halves would have forward momentum after being sliced, but momentum not as great as impact velocity. Transposed & applied to 9/11 wings, the wings would have been sliced and would have continued into the void of the office space. Unlike what many proclaimed, the wings/tail as a whole would not be bounced off of the side of the building.

The car wasn't just sliced, but had pieces broken off forcefully ejected. Transposed & applied to 9/11, first responders approaching the towers from different directions noted aircraft parts, such as what was "littered on Dey and Courtland."

The rocket-wedge (shaped as triangular wedge 8-10" on side, solid steel) was not the same as 1/4" thick steel plates welded into 14"x14"x3-story box columns. Just as the backstop wall ultimately destroyed the wedge, transposed & applied to 9/11 the fuselage and engines could have destroyed columns.

Although I believe the velocity-squared in the energy equation would have made some breaking or "cutting" of box columns possible [in addition to bending and pushing, which can have the same "cookie-cutter" appearance], I understand how others may not believe this and could convince me this wasn't possible.

Too this end, much speculation has happened throughout the years into the nature of the pod on the plane, the details of the pre-demolition work, and the nature of the foreign-artist-in-residence group in the towers. At one point, Dr. Jones had speculated that his super-duper nano-thermite could be laser ignited. In particular, those that champion holograms by necessity must contemplate preparation work within the towers to allow for the "cookie-cutter" appearance.

Thus, if disbelief persists into damage that an airliner can have on the box columns, they should re-apply their speculation into tower preparation work to precision-guided enhanced aircraft (was the pod a laser?) as opposed to "jumping the shark" into holograms.

Another point about the Mythbuster video. The spark and explosion happened when the fuel tank of the rocket engine hit the wall, not when the wedge itself hit the wall. The fuel of the rocket is very different than the jet fuel of the airplane with regards to combustibility and the conditions required to ignite into a fireball. Slicing wings, rupturing the wing fuel tanks, and (momentum) spreading fuel throughout the office space is conceivable before exhaust of an engine ignites it into the observed fireball.

//


x224 Maxwell C. Bridges : a wall assembly punched out from the backside of WTC-1

2014-03-27

I apologize in advance for the multiple postings in a row. [Guess I should amend my definition of spamming. When posting images or links inside of multiple postings in a row, it isn't spam.]

Mr. Ray Kraaijenhagen posted some interesting pictures and links that have (negative) implications to those peddling NPT at the WTC.

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict7.jpg

This is wheel from the 1st aircraft that punched out from the backside of WTC-1 a wall assembly.

//
+++

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict1.jpg

Different perspective: this is wheel from the 1st aircraft that punched out a wall assembly from the backside of WTC-1.
//
+++

Details on wall assembly.
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict3.jpg
//
+++

10 Different reports of Landing Gear being found. [Each plane, 3 sets of landing gear. Each of the rear landing gear had 8 tires or sub-assemblies.]
http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict4.jpg
//
+++

Cryptome FOIA: WTC Photos
http://911reports.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/cryptome-foia-wtc-photos/
//
+++

Those who propose that no aircraft were involved at the WTC need to re-evaluate the evidence and their assumptions.

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm
//


x225 Maxwell C. Bridges : isn't reading and evaluating things objectively

2014-03-27

Mr. Ganduu's 2nd-last comment was 4 minutes after my posting and consisted of: "wow that was heavy, perhaps people will just believe just to get through it."

Mr. Ganduu's last comment in response to six comments with images and links: "What evidence?"

Obviously, Mr. Ganduu isn't reading and evaluating things objectively. Parallelisms with our discussions about DEW and Nukes, and why the former needs the latter. Went right over his head. His cognitive dissonance couldn't get him to admit that his understanding and beliefs (from Dr. Wood) didn't go far enough into explaining 9/11.

Mr. Ganduu should kindly block me, because he has consistently never contributed anything of value to discussions involving me. It's as if he's paid to run interference (like Keoki George).

//


x226 FB Participants ATW : flicked it with your finger

2014-03-28

Norma Rae 11:44pm Mar 27
Maxwell Bridges said "With air resistance, the heavier object travels further because it has more kinetic energy to counteract the air resistance (which is mostly dependent on velocity and surface area of leading edge.) "

What you aren't looking at is this: If you put a small light object on the table and flicked it with your finger, it will travel far. Now put a heavier object and flick it. It will not travel very far.

The objects that were flying out of the towers were hit with the same force. Therefore, the landing gear could not have been ejected as far as the body parts were being ejected. The perps claim both body parts and heavy metal parts landed on 51 Park Place. They are lying. This is not possible.

Atahan Ganduu 11:54pm Mar 27
And then it stood itself up

Norma Rae 12:23am Mar 28
Maxwell Bridges You didn't prove anything with calculating the velocity of 122mph. You used your GUT and concluded that it was a possible scenario. What if they had planted the evidence at 2000 feet out. Then you would make a calculation and find out the required velocity would have to be 175mph. You would use YOUR GUT and conclude it is reasonable and I would say it's not possible based on my gut. So what DISTANCE does the planted evidence become UNREASONABLE? You are strictly using YOUR GUT to make that determination. We must know the mass and the ejected force that the items were being ejected.

ALL the evidence points to the objects were planted. The only thing that says they flew out is the PERPS words and you choose to believe the perps.
https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1527101_10201050559186369_1630679333_n.jpg

Norma Rae 10:25am Mar 28
Maxwell Bridges once again you are wrong.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1.0-9/10155662_10201052051183668_114280725_n.jpg


x227 Maxwell C. Bridges : Newton's 3rd Law doesn't say "flung back."

2014-03-28

Part 1/3

Ms. Rae tries to demonstrate a passable knowledge of physics with her posting yesterday beginning "The way it should have worked: Momentum and Newton's 3rd Law of Physics."

Too bad the mark-up to her image is completely fucked up. The image is from a perspective inside the towers, therefore her cyan line coming from the interior, bouncing off the wall, and back into the interior is WRONG. The arrowed line should be on the other side going the other direction. Likewise, her green arrow about momentum through the glass is also WRONG. The arrow should go other direction.

Ignoring these defects and "reading into it" what Ms. Rae was probably trying to say, she also gets it WRONG again with her wording "per Newton's 3rd Law of Physics, the plane would have flung back when it hit the steel." No, this would have only been true in a perfectly elastic collision, if the wall assemblies had no windows, and if the wall assembly was solid, rigid, and didn't have built-in failure points (e.g., bolts holding assemblies to one another.)

In other words, the wall assemblies had lots of give, with the near zero resistance of the windows (at 50% of the walls face) being a glaring one that would have prevented the plane as a whole from being "flung back." The bolts were another failure point, which Ms. Rae's image shows the juncture point being between floors and not at floors.

Ms. Rae correctly writes that the steel would have shredded the plane, which it did, and momentum took the shreds through the windows into the towers. Ms. Rae also correctly writes that the titanium engines should have caused damaged to the wall, but she neglects the fact that this damage amounted to whole wall assemblies being severed at it junctions and pushed into the building, and that the fuselage also achieved this.

As for Newton's 3rd Law, it doesn't say "flung back." It says: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body." Applied to the wings of the 9/11 aircraft, this means that while they are being shattered by a box column, the box column is also being pushed. That pushing can lead to bolts breaking, box columns bending, and even box columns breaking.

To the point of "fling back," the videos from their distance do not do justice to the amount of aircraft shattering that actually did fling back. Those who were on the scene have already testified to lots of aircraft debris, even on the sides of the towers that were impacted.

Ms. Rae continues in her error-prone mark-up to say: "The plane would have exploded on impact." WRONG.

Taking Ms. Rae's words literally, it would mean that as soon as the nose cone and fuselage impacted the towers, there would have been explosions. From what? What fuel or explosives are in the nose cone or fuselage at the front of the plane?

If we allow Ms. Rae's wording some latitude to mean "when the wings impacted the towers, there should have been explosions," WRONG again. Jet fuel is not as volatile as gasoline and requires special conditions to be ignited. Impact and fuel dispursion in the towers is not enough, but the exhaust from the engines upon entering the towers where the fuel was spilled would have been (and was observed as so).

Ms. Rae is malframing the situation to support her "No Planes Theory" (NPT) disinformation.

I wrote: "With air resistance, the heavier object travels further because it has more kinetic energy to counteract the air resistance (which is mostly dependent on velocity and surface area of leading edge.)"

Ms. Rae tries to counter this with: "If you put a small light object on the table and flicked it with your finger, it will travel far. Now put a heavier object and flick it. It will not travel very far."

Both statements are correct, and Ms. Rae's efforts to counter my points demonstrates her weak understanding of physics.

Stating Ms. Rae's statement another way, if you transfer the same energy into a heavy object and a light object (that are otherwise identical), the heavy object will not travel as far. This is different than my statement that says if heavy and light object are already in motion at the same velocity, the heavy object has more kinetic energy to overcome resistive forces so it will travel further.

The physics math associated with this is as follows. M0 is your finger and V0 is the velocity in which it impacts objects of mass M1 and M2, where M2>M1. In a collision (a finger-flick), momentum is conserved, therefore:

M0*V0=M1*V1
M0*V0=M2*V2

Therefore,
M1*V1=M2*V2
=> V2=V1(M1/M2)

Because M2>M1, V2<V1. Distance is equal to velocity * time. If we assume a constant time Tc for both objects, then:

D1=V1*Tc
D2=V2*Tc

Because the velocity of the heavier second object (V2) is less than the velocity of the lighter first object (V1), D1>D2 and the lighter first object travels further when impacted with equal energy. This proves Ms. Rae's statement.

To prove my statement, let's model the objects as colliding with air at increments. (When the time increments are made very, very small, you approximate a continuous function.) Conservation of momentum applies. Because the objects are identical except for mass and because air resistance is dependent on velocity [R(v)] and leading edge surface area, the air resistance (R) starting out is identical. Likewise, by definition, the starting velocity [Vc] for each object is the same. The first increment of conservation of momentum from such a collision would be:

Object 1: M1*Vc-R=M1*V1
Object 2: M2*Vc-R=M2*V2

V1=Vc-R/M1
V2=Vc-R/M2

In other words, M2>M1 therefore (R/M2)<(R/M1) and more importantly V1<V2. Thus at the first increment, the lighter object M1 is already traveling slower than the heavier object M2.

From here things diverge, because the air resistance is dependent on velocity [R(v)] and the velocities are already different. To aid our understanding, we could apply one of two extreme simplifications. [1] Extreme on one end, we could say air resistance R was not a function of velocity but was constant, in which case R/M1 would continually slow down object 1 at a greater rate than R/M2 would continually slow down the heavier object 2. Or [2] extreme on the other end, we could say no more air resistance, in which case V2>V1. Whichever extreme simplication we choose, the heavier object travels further, and this remains true if we keep the complicated case of air resistance as a function of velocity.

// Part 1/3

Part 2/3

Ms. Rae wrote: "The objects that were flying out of the towers were hit with the same force. Therefore, the landing gear could not have been ejected as far as the body parts were being ejected." WRONG.

As just proven, this is wrong because physics tells us that the heavier landing gear would travel further with air resistance than lighter body parts, if ejected AT THE SAME INITIAL VELOCITY. [This is not the same thing as saying "hit with the same force," which is Ms. Rae being loose and lazy with the physics terms, as well as the event itself.]

Ms. Rae goes on to say: "The perps claim both body parts and heavy metal parts landed on 51 Park Place. They are lying. This is not possible."

First of all, I am assuming that Ms. Rae can substantiate the claim of body parts being found on 51 Park Place.

Secondly, based on Ms. Rae's faulty understanding, she's implying "(lighter) body parts could get ejected to Park Place, but not (heavy) metal parts." If we neglect differing aerodynamics but account for air resistance, then equal initial velocities means that the heavy metal parts would have actually traveled further. If (lighter) body parts are found at the same location as (heavy) metal parts, then (a) the heavier object was not ejected at the same velocity, possibly owing to it being slowed by plowing through the towers; or (b) the heavier object had different aerodynamic properties that resulted in more air resistance; or (c)_ due to collision physics, the ejection angles were not equivalent for the objects; or (d) unknown factors; or (e) all of the above. It should be noted that office workers and passengers are the alleged sources for the found body parts.

Therefore, Ms. Rae's conclusion "[t]his is not possible" is WRONG.

Ms. Rae continues in the defense of a crumbly pillar to her NPT premise: "You didn't prove anything with calculating the velocity of 122mph. You used your GUT and concluded that it was a possible scenario."

WRONG. You confidently state over and over that certain things are impossible, based on your GUT. I didn't use my gut. I used physics and prove that the observed evidence fits into the range of what is possible.

Ms. Rae wrote: "What if they had planted the evidence at 2000 feet out. Then you would make a calculation and find out the required velocity would have to be 175mph."

Correct.

Ms. Rae writes: "You would use YOUR GUT and conclude it is reasonable and I would say it's not possible based on my gut."

Ms. Rae's gut has been repeatedly proven wrong. Had I been using my gut, I would easily be duped by the same premises that Ms. Rae is. I'm not. I'm using the proper application of physics.

Ms. Rae challenges: "So what DISTANCE does the planted evidence become UNREASONABLE?"

I'm surprised Ms. Rae t didn't use her spreadsheet. No question about it, any aircraft debris found at a distance of 5,725 ft or more (> 1 mile) would be considered unreasonable, because this calculates to be a launch velocity of 500 mph and identical to the impact velocity, meaning no energy was lost in the collision.

Were I to make an exception in this case and use my gut, I'd say that any aircraft debris found at a distance greater than 2,862 ft would be unreasonable, because this translates into a launch velocity of 250 mph (1/2 the impact velocity). I'm not beholden to this, and maybe distances greater than 2,290 ft (200 mph) are also unreasonable.

Ms. Rae writes: "You are strictly using YOUR GUT to make that determination."

No, Ms. Rae has been strictly using her error-prone gut to make blanket determinations about what is impossible.

Ms. Rae writes: "We must know the mass and the ejected force that the items were being ejected."

WRONG. First of all, we don't need to know the force. Secondly, we don't need to know the mass, because it does not factor into the trajectory equations. Thirdly, we can calculate from successive frames of the video evidence what the ejection velocity was of certain items, usually large ones because they stand out from a distance in the videos. I haven't actually done such velocity analysis from successive frames of the videos for the projectile trailing smoke that appeared to be heading for Church & Murray. But I would be willing to bet money that its velocity was 150 +/- 20 mph (whereby the tolerance given is my gut speaking.)

// Part 2/3

Part 3/3

Before I could finish this missive, Ms. Rae demonstrates again her weak understanding of physics. She hynotically writes in a new comment: "once again you are wrong." As it will be proven, Ms. Rae doesn't understand.

Ms. Rae wrote: "Trajectory. As you get further out, the angle at the bottom gets (smaller)."

If the launch height y0 remains constant, then Ms. Rae is correct. The longer the distance that a projectile goes -- meaning a greater and greater launch velocity --, the angle at impact gets smaller.

Ms. Rae writes in her misguided callout: "At free fall, the angle to the ground is 90 degrees. As the distance increases, then angle to the horizontal decreases."

What she really meant was that "with no horizontal launch velocity, the vector to the ground is 90 degrees. As the horizontal launch velocity increases, the impact angle decreases."

But this was not entirely what the discussion was about; my analysis was not in error, and Ms. Rae would know this if her science wasn't so weak.

If the launch velocity and launch angle are held constant (v0=150[mph] and theta = 0 degrees) but the launch height is increased, not only does the distance increase [which was the stated premise] but also the angle at impact.

y0= 500 [ft] => Dx = 1226 [ft]; Angle = 39 degrees
y0=1000 [ft] => Dx = 1734 [ft]; Angle = 49 degrees
y0=1500 [ft] => Dx = 2124 [ft]; Angle = 54 degrees
y0=2000 [ft] => Dx = 2452 [ft]; Angle = 58 degrees
y0=2500 [ft] => Dx = 2742 [ft]; Angle = 61 degrees
y0=3000 [ft] => Dx = 3003 [ft]; Angle = 63 degrees

Ms. Rae's callout continues with her misguided efforts: "The PERPS drew the trajectory at almost a 90 angle to the horizontal. The debris would have gounged the corner of that wall as well. This damage was staged to coincide with the Official LIE."

First of all, I didn't draw the image.

Second, if she is going to call the artist who added a symbolic, very thick, red, arching line to a photo a "PERP" for its minor inaccuracies, then Ms. Rae opens the door for her to be called a "PERP" for the ~many~ inaccuracies that she introduces in her images and callouts.

Yes, the symbolic, very thick, red, arching line is not accurate. But when Ms. Rae adds her cyan line to the picture to claim "almost a 90 angle to the horizontal," her cyan horizontal is WRONG.

The building is not photographed straight on or at the height where damage is. To be correct, Ms. Rae's horizontal line would need to be parallel with the roof line of where the damage is. Were she to do so, the result would be that her claim/depiction of "almost 90 angle" is "even less so an almost 90 angle." Furthermore, if the skewed perspective could be altered to be straight on, the symbolic, very thick, red, arching line would have less still the appearance of 90 degrees.

Ms. Rae is spinning a mountain out of a molehill for dubious purposes.

Returning to a previous comment or call-out, Ms. Rae hypnotically states: "ALL the evidence points to the objects were planted."

If this was the case, this was a significant undertaking and points to a very large crew of conspirators in order to plant air plane parts and body parts in such a wide radius around the WTC in a very narrow frame of time between the impact explosions and the arriving first responders who observed it, before either tower was decimated. Ain't very Occam Razor.

I didn't know this until yesterday and I re-posted it, but there were ten different reports on the landing gear being found. From my research, each aircraft had 3 sets of landing gear and 10 wheels (total of 20 wheels). As is shown from images posted by me yesterday, at least two of the reports of "landing gear" were in reference to the discovery of just one wheel each. If we assume that none of the 10 reports of "landing gear" being found were in reference to the same part/location and that each report was of just one wheel, that's 10 wheels that the crew of perps would have to drive around and plant. How did they fake this one from the account from Jeff Johnson (hearsay through John Breen) who saw "part of the landing gear actually fall through the roof and it was in one of the Jacuzzis in another room."

In my postings from yesterday beginning "I apologize..." and "Different perspective...", two JPG were posted. The second JPG had two images, the lower one was labeled "Figure 9-123: Landing gear found embedded in exterior panel knocked free from the WTC-1" and is a different perspective of the image from the first posting. Ms. Rae should study this much, much closer.

How did the perps knock this wall assembly off of the backside of WTC-1 (with respect to alleged plane impact)? How did they get a wheel from an aircraft lodged in it?

Ms. Rae continues with her PysOps to bolster NPT: "The only thing that says they [landing gear/engines/body parts] flew out is the PERPS words and you choose to believe the perps."

I haven't read the 7,060 pages of oral histories of 9/11. However, when I insert "plane parts" into the PDF search of this file, I get this list of first-responders who mentioned seeing plane parts: T. Fitzpatrick, M. Delgado, M. Guttenberg, S. Gregory, S. Hess, Wernick, J. Drury, J. Gombo, G. DeSimone, R. Goldbach, F. Gribbon, L. Tierney, K. Zarr, J. Chiafari, K. Martin, M. Hazel, T. Smith, R. Saulle, R. Norris, and T. Brown.

Is Ms. Rae accusing all of these first responders as being liars or the perpetrators? Is Ms. Rae suggesting that these witnesses were triggered into associating observed debris with airplanes because "plane parts" was dropped by the interviewers in stilted questions?

Or is Ms. Rae just full of shit?

Who is telling Ms. Rae that there were no planes (at the WTC), there were no airplane parts, or that all of the airplane parts were planted? The perps via the counter-intelligence PsyOps disinfo agents created by the Q-Group of the NSA and Cass Sunstein style cognitive infiltration of online groups as part of the cover-up to muddy the waters.

// Part 3/3


x228 FB Participants ATW : A shoe and an engine both flew 1400feet!

2014-03-31

Norma Rae 11:42am Mar 28
A shoe and an engine both flew 1400feet! LOL!!!Calculate that Maxwell Bridges!!!
Frame 0:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKFTitzBHc

Norma Rae 11:42am Mar 28
A shoe and an engine both flew 1400feet! LOL!!!
Calculate that Maxwell Bridges!!!
Place a light object and a heavy object on a table. Flick them off the table with your finger. They will have different Trajectories and distances. They were both exposed to the same FORCE, they can not land at the same distance.

Frame 0:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKFTitzBHc

Maxwell Bridges once again you are wrong.

I am not ignoring the WHITE TRAIL OBJECTS. I have given them hours of scrutiny. I have concluded that there are TWO separate WHITE trails. One ejecting at a 45 degree angle and the other ejecting perpendicular to the wall.

You are WRONG Mr. MaxwellBridges to conclude that BOTH trails lead to Church & Murray.

Those WHITE TRAILS are noe other than a ROCKET/SMALL MISSILE that was launched to support their LIE that an engine flew 1400 feet (4 football fields) and landed on Church & Murray.

Call-Out: BLUE Arrow 45 degree Ejection. RED Arrow Perpendicular Ejection.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10201052078824359&set=p.10201052078824359&type=1&theater

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges once again you are wrong.

My Response:
(1) Of course there was something real. It was a missile.
(2) The items on 9/11 leaving a white smoke were rockets/small missiles. Everything was well planned out. TWO TRAJECTORIES to represent the engine and the landing gear.
(3) Damage to Park Place doesn't jive with a real trejectory.
(4) Det. Greg Semendinger's hi-res photo proves there was no activity on Church & Murray.
(5) The velocity calculated prove nothing. By Maxwell's logic, We could then conclude that if the plane had a yacht, that it too could have landed 1400 feet in an upright postion.
(6) Witness on both sides, therefore, can't rely on their testimony. Many are believed to be paid actors. Operation Northwoods talks about starting fires. The smoking engine was staged.

45 degree Trajectory
Perpendicular Trajectory

March 28 at 10:53am · Like

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges wrote:
"NPT at the WTC using holograms is dead, as far as I'm concerned. Get some new information to thoroughly substantiate it, or you must concede and give up this point, because the weight of the evidence and analysis is against you.

Give it a rest, because all you're really doing is purposely distracting from the valid instances of NPT at the Pentagon (with respect to an actual crashed plane) and NPT at Shanksville."

It is clear that your goal is to discredit the NPT. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but the evidence points to NPT. It won't be going away and as a matter of fact, it's gaining momentum because the truth stands up to all scrutiny.
March 28 at 10:56am · Like

Norma Rae Mr. Maxwell Bridges I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for being in my group. You have given me so many opportunities to prove the Official Story it one big LIE. It is because of you that I have dug deeper and have exposed more lies. Keep up the good work playing the DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

March 28 at 10:58am · Like

Norma Rae This video is all stitched up to make it look like the engine scene happened on 9/11. Maxwell Bridges The FBI guys staged the whole scene. They focus on the SHOE, they have the L-SQUARE. I was right about the MEN IN KHAKI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKFTitzBHc

Norma Rae I guarantee, it was staged on a different day. The hi-res photo from Det. Greg Semindinger proves it was a ghost town on Church & Murray. The sound effects on this clip are so FAKE.
March 28 at 11:19am · Edited · Like · 1

Norma Rae It doesn't jive.

STAGED CHURCH & MURRAY ENGINE

The engine scene on Murray & Church was STAGED on a different day. The photo taken by Detective Greg Semendinger released in 2010 under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) PROVES that Church & Murray was a GHOST TOWN.

"That's what they said, that's what they said. Another plane might be coming."
March 28 at 11:31am · Like

Norma Rae A shoe and an engine both flew 1400feet! LOL!!!
Calculate that Maxwell Bridges!!!
Place a light object and a heavy object on a table. Flick them off the table with your finger. They will have different Trajectories and distances. They were both exposed to the same FORCE, they can not land at the same distance.
Frame 0:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVKFTitzBHc

March 28 at 11:48am · Edited · Like · 1

Norma Rae I'll show you mine. Now show me yours Maxwell Bridges
Norma Rae's photo.
March 28 at 3:54pm · Like


Norma Rae I think you taught yourself physics and you missed very important lessons.
March 28 at 3:55pm · Like

Norma Rae Maxwell Bridges You missed the title of my picture. I indicated it is from the wrong side. You (or maybe your group of debunkers) are too quick to try to debunk me that you are missing the boat.
Norma Rae's photo.
March 28 at 3:59pm · Edited · Like

Norma Rae Your comments are so lengthy, they're clearly designed to waste my time. Sorry Maxwell, you go ahead and believe that the shoe and engine went for a 1400 feet ride and landed there. I'll agree to disagree with you.
March 28 at 4:01pm · Edited · Like

Maxwell Bridges Obviously, Ms. Rae did not have time to read my 3 part comment before she put her new challenges. As proven, though, my understanding of physics is superior to hers, otherwise she wouldn't be fucking up so much in the disinformation that she spreads. Otherwise, she would be changing her tune about aircraft involvement.

I don't have any need to show my degrees to prove my position and the errors in Ms. Rae's. I don't really have a dog in this hunt except that I'm a sincere seeker of truth. The evidence stacks up nicely for a real plane (not necessarily the alleged commercial aircraft). The evidence, physics, analysis, etc. does not stack up for NPT at the WTC.

I'll probably be off-line for the rest of today. Ms. Rae should take her time to read my 3 part comment closely. Refute it if she can, but she can't except with more LIES and SPIN.

//
March 28 at 4:02pm · Like

Norma Rae I sure would like to see your diploma. Because I don't believe it was science based.
March 28 at 4:02pm · Like

Norma Rae If you are trying to bully me, it's not working. You're a joke Maxwell Bridges.
March 28 at 4:03pm · Like

Maxwell Bridges Focus, Ms. Rae. Take your time and read carefully my 3 part comment, which you obviously still have not done. Readers only need to look at your last two comments -- no substance -- to see who is full of shit and bullying and who isn't. I'm off line as of right now. //
March 28 at 4:06pm · Like

Norma Rae No I haven't read your comment, I'm not sure I'm going to give you much more of my time.
March 28 at 4:08pm · Like

Tracy Blevins Scientific results fall into two categories: quantitative and qualitative. Neither type of data is better than the other. Quantitative data is most useful when describing subtle phenomena, when small differences between groups might require sophisticated analysis to determine if the differences are significant. When there are big differences, qualitative determinations can be made. Subtle statistics aren't necessary in these cases. My results fall into the qualitative category. The steel beams of the WTC were almost entirely turned into steel powder at low temperature. You could put some numbers on it, perhaps describing the percent of the steel beams that were turned into powder, or the exact temperature of destruction, but it's not necessary. That ANY steel was turned into powdered steel at low temperature is remarkable.
March 28 at 4:15pm · Like · 1

Steve Grage Mr. Maxwell Bridges continues his PsyOp that he believes a plane and it's wings penetrated the exo-structure of WTC. It's impossible, and he knows it. One thing to understand about PsyOp, they want you to take a side that's wrong vs. wrong. e.g. did the shoe travel 1400ft, same as the engine? The PsyOp gives credence that there was a trajectory of plane parts. There are many other PsyOp topics (molten metal, thermite, high temperatures). We're not talking about how weak a plane structure is, nor how strong the WTC structure is, or how the holes were formed as it's obvious a plane didn't go through there. What videos can we trust as we know the ones with planes are frauds? We provide proof there was no collision between plane and WTC. Kill the PsyOp. Share the truth.
March 29 at 1:59am · Like · 1

Atahan Ganduu Maxwell may be pulling a psychological operation on himself with all that blogging
March 29 at 2:46am · Edited · Like · 1


x229 Maxwell C. Bridges : the assumption that the shoe came from the WTC or the airplane is a dubious one

2014-03-31

Comments passed each other, so several piece of dubious "analysis" by Ms. Rae were not addressed. I'll rectify that here.

Ms. Rae writes: "A shoe and an engine both flew 1400feet! LOL!!!Calculate that Maxwell Bridges!!!"

The assumption that the shoe came from the WTC or the airplane is a dubious one. Who is to say that the shoe wasn't already at the scene of Murray & Church or didn't come from other sources? Is the official story claiming the shoe came from the plane or WTC? Because my belief is that the aircraft that hit the towers was not the alleged commercial aircraft and probably had no crew or passengers, then the shoe -- if attributed to the airplane/WTC -- may very well have been planted to support the story of real victims.

At various points in time, Ms. Rae mentioned that both body parts and an aircraft wheel assembly were found at Park Place. She should substantiate this, because I think she's confused and being dubiously loose with the evidence.

Ms. Rae wrote in the call-out to two images.

+++ Begin quotes from Ms. Rae


I am not ignoring the WHITE TRAIL OBJECTS. I have given them hours of scrutiny. I have concluded that there are TWO separate WHITE trails. One ejecting at a 45 degree angle and the other ejecting perpendicular to the wall. You are WRONG Mr. Maxwell Bridges to conclude that BOTH trails lead to Church & Murray. Those WHITE TRAILS are none other than a ROCKET/SMALL MISSILE that was launched to support their LIE that an engine flew 1400 feet (4 football fields) and landed on Church & Murray. Call-Out: BLUE Arrow 45 degree Ejection. RED Arrow Perpendicular Ejection.

My Response:
(1) Of course there was something real. It was a missile.
(2) The items on 9/11 leaving a white smoke were rockets/small missiles. Everything was well planned out. TWO TRAJECTORIES to represent the engine and the landing gear.
(3) Damage to Park Place doesn't jive with a real trejectory.
(4) Det. Greg Semendinger's hi-res photo proves there was no activity on Church & Murray.
(5) The velocity calculated prove nothing. By Maxwell's logic, We could then conclude that if the plane had a yacht, that it too could have landed 1400 feet in an upright postion.
(6) Witness on both sides, therefore, can't rely on their testimony. Many are believed to be paid actors. Operation Northwoods talks about starting fires. The smoking engine was staged.

+++ End quotes from Ms. Rae

Ms. Rae is full of shit. Purposely so, if we are to believe she has a Mechanical Engineering degree. Ms. Rae offers up two images that depict a large object trailing white smoke. Ms. Rae isn't smart enough to recognize that the two images were taken milliseconds apart and depict the same event, one from a camera position West of the WTC and the other North. These differing camera perspectives "confuse" Ms. Rae into thinking two objects, one traveling neatly 90 degrees (or straight out of the tower), and one traveling neatly 45 degrees.

If Ms. Rae would search for some videos on the subject, she'd see two objects leaving at about the same time with different vectors. But the object that went further and is seen in both of her mal-analyzed pictures is one and the same, and flew neither 45 degrees nor 90 degrees from the towers.

Furthermore, Ms. Rae says that the objects trailing smoke were two rockets or small missiles, which she says always have a smoke trail. Then why didn't they have such when they entered the towers? Or is the new disinfo circus act from Ms. Rae that a cloaked plane projected a commercial aircraft; the tower impacts were faked; the explosion was faked, and was designed to launch two rockets or small missiles? Where the missiles really went, Ms. Rae can't say.

Here's why the objects trailing smoke were ~not~ two rockets or small missiles. Such trailing smoke from a missile represents ongoing propulsion

Ms. Rae points repeatedly to a hi-res photo from Det. Greg Semindinger that to her faulty logic proves it was a ghost town on Church & Murray.

First of all, it isn't high-resolution enough for you to zoom into street signs, trash cans, or traffic paint on the street. Second, timing timing timing. The dust on the street and lingering in the air even as the large dust cloud looms indicates that WTC-2 had already been destroyed and that WTC-1 was being destroyed.

Sure, Church & Murray was a "ghost town" at the time of the picture (10:28 am) because it had already been overrun by one massive dust cloud (9:59 am). Does Ms. Rae really expect people to be lingering there without protection for the entire time it took the first dust cloud to mostly settle?

Ms. Rae demonstrates her true position with the comment: "No I haven't read your comment, I'm not sure I'm going to give you much more of my time."

I lame excuse by a disinformation warrior.

I posted three comments, because length restrictions prevented them from being one comment. Ms. Rae would prefer that the three comments that thoroughly addressed her "work" point-by-point in a logical and serious fashion be expanded into 30 or 90 separate comments. Were that done, she'd then rightfully complain about spamming.

Her job of refuting what I wrote is actually easier when the comments are longer. She can copy them easily and paste into NotePad and go through point by point. This she doesn't do, because she knows her efforts would validate my points.

Ms. Rae has already demonstrated that she doesn't understand different camera perspectives. But that's only part of the reason why she ignores these two images.

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict7.jpg

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/pict1.jpg

The real reason is that the wall assembly from the back-side of the WTC (with respect to direction of impact) with a portion of an aircraft's wheel assembly stuck in it is pretty damning to her duped useful idiot cause of no planes at the WTC. Then 10 reports of landing gear also does damage to her cause.

This wall assembly in the street also destroys her arguments about crash physics. The plane went through one wall and the core area, and it still had enough energy to several the bolts of a wall assembly on the back-side and knock it to the street. If nothing else this should be saying how weak those connection bolts were. Therefore, any damage on the front-side that can be attributed to entire wall assemblies being pushed about reduces total energy requirement and leaves energy available to bend or break box columns of wall assemblies elsewhere.

With the likes of Ms. Rae championing NPT at the WTC, it won't be gaining traction but losing it. She shoots her own credibility in the foot with her "90 degree trajectory and 45 degree trajectory" that clearly represent the same event from different perspectives and neither at those angles.

P.S. It is good to see Steve Grage and Atahan Ganduu contribute their "me-too" nothingness to the no-planes PsyOps. And Dr. Tracy Blevins has nothing scientific to add to the discussion.

//


x230 Maxwell C. Bridges : exited at 45 degrees

2014-03-31

Ms. Rae didn't prove anything exited at 45 degrees. What she proved is that she doesn't understand camera perspective and that what she claimed were 2 objects -- one at 90 degrees and one at 45 degrees -- were actually one and the same object trailing smoking heading in neither of those two directions but was on a vector co-linear with the impact vector and heading toward Park Place and Church & Murray.

Ms. Rae writes in a call-out: "Is the whole even large enough for the plane debris and engine to exit?"

Yes. You can't tell because the window was subsequently blocked by other pieces of the plane, office furnishings, and/or building structure. The angled corner window on the lower floor had no vertical beam and was sufficiently large to allow the diameter of the cylindrical engine to pass from several angles of attack.

The shoe? If Ms. Rae wants to say it was planted, I won't object. If planted, its objective was to support the lie that crew and passengers were aboard the aircraft (or that workers were in the WTC.)

Oh, and look! Precisely the picture I'd been missing! This is the one with the engine, shoe, and trash can! Yet, other pictures no longer show the trash can. (Following Ms. Rae's logic: Did the trash can come from the aircraft, too?)

At any rate, if the trash can was there before the engine came down, maybe the shoe was, too. The shoe does disappear from images later that show dusty streets and engine parts.

And what Ms. Rae labels "prestine shoe" isn't so. Its wear and damage are indicative of why someone would throw it out.

And how in the hell did Ms. Rae get 16 degrees? "In order to reach Church & Murray, they would have needed to exit at a 16 degree angle." 16 degrees with respect to what? And how does this 16 degrees related to Ms. Rae's previously drawn dubious 90 degree RED line and 45 degree BLUE line. And to think Ms. Rae has a Mechanical Engineering degree! For shame.

I think Ms. Rae doesn't mean "16 degrees" but means instead 74 degrees with respect to North face of the South tower.

//


x231 Da Plane : Of the 20 Wheels

2014-03-31

http://cryptome.org/info/wtc-punch/wtc-punch.htm







Landing gear at West and Rector Streets








x232 Maxwell C. Bridges : digital imagery manipulation duped me

2014-04-03

{AE}

I used to be an NPT. But what duped me was digital imagery manipulation, not holograms. As soon as I started entertaining holograms seriously, I immediately found them wanting in serious ways. I still believe that a certain degree of imagery manipulation happened.

What I learned from my tour as a NPT-er was that September Clues was being dishonest in how they were promoting it: all was faked, nothing was valid. Not a single image of the planes or the destruction could be trusted as being real, according to them. They had nothing to fill the void. Worse, a cornerstone of their work that had duped me -- seemingly multiple flight paths indicating screw-ups in the digital composites -- was really proven via 3D modeling to be one and the same flight path in agreement with two sets of radar data.

Radar doesn't ping off of holograms, therefore the hologram NPT argument (by Richard Hall) is supported by the additional premise of a cloaked plane, malframing the tolerances of one set of radar data, and claiming the more accurate and robust set of radar data was faked. When the tolerances of both radar systems are taken into consideration, they are in agreement and represent a co-linear flight path matching what was observed.

At any rate, recently as a planer I stood up to counter errors in the NPT argument (that I now see as purposeful deceit.) I learned more about the aircraft debris that my opponent ignores, too much to be planted in the short span of time after plane impacts and arrival of 1st responders. My opponent fucked up the physics analysis so bad and even misunderstood the trigonometry, that I have to question whether a degree in mechanical engineering was my opponent's education. What was said to be impossible -- like an engine traveling 1,400 ft --, the physics deemed to be within the range of what I consider to be possible, an exit velocity from the tower at about 122 mph (slowed on impact from 500 mph).

Late in the game I stumbled upon the landing gear. Each plane had three sets of landing gear consisting of 10 wheels, or 20 wheels in total. I learned just last week that there were 10 separate reports of "landing gear" (wheels) after 9/11. One in particular took out a wall assembly from the back-side of WTC-1 and carried it 700 ft. This is important for those who site "impossible crash physics."

The bolts connecting wall assemblies to one another were a designed-in failure point that allowed an aircraft to act like a pencil piercing a mesh screen, as was described by a WTC designer. When the damage on the face of the buildings is quantified, we see areas where bolts failed & wall assemblies were pushed, areas where bolts failed and box-columns (from the wall assemblies) were bent, and areas where box-columns were broken. The box-columns themselves were crafted out of 1/4" steel formed into boxes 14"x14"x3-stories. They were not solid steel.

The Sandia F4 video and the Mythbuster Rocket-snow-plow video helped impress upon me how crash physics changes at high velocities. The velocity-squared term in the energy equation gets very large to the point of overwhelming the structural energy of materials of the vehicles/structure in the crash, such that they shatter instead of "a whole wing/tail bouncing off" the towers. Moreover, the walls of the towers were not solid; 50% of the lateral surface area was composed of window slits -- the path of least resistance. None of the cameras recording the event (to our knowledge) were high speed cameras. None were close enough to really examine the debris. However, first responders reported seeing ample evidence of shredded debris.

I conclude that the appropriate crash physics did happen, and the naysayers are too weak in their understanding of physics to comprehend and suffer from cognitive dissonance in the other direction, namely, they know the OCT is a lie and that many tricks were pulled in the ruse, so they overcompensate with theories that go to illogical extremes. [I believe that NPT at the WTC was purposely introduced by slick September Clues and Richard Hall to distract from valid instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville. The hope is that audiences will become so disgusted with the NPT at WTC antics, they'll lump all NPT together and sweep it from the table of objective consideration.]

The only validity I see to NPT at the WTC efforts is that the engines might not have come from the alleged commercial aircraft. If they want to argue that the plane was souped-up to go faster with enhanced wings, more power to them, but there is really no getting around real aircraft. I'm on the fence about this, because just about any plane in a dive can exceed its velocity ratings at altitude.

//


x233 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thermite was only found in the samples that Dr. Jones was given

2014-04-04

{AE}

I wrote: "... just about any plane in a dive can exceed its velocity ratings at altitude." I got this in one of those internet discussions with someone with more flying experience than I (zippo), and the assumptions were that the even a gradual descent with gravity helping would have it exceed ratings.

Mr. Robert Sobotor wrote: "perhaps but not in level flight by over 150kts at 500ASL."

I'm not in a position to disagree. If we go with this assumption, then the plane was not the alleged commercial aircraft but was a real aircraft. If it wasn't the alleged aircraft, then all bets are off with regards to enhancements that might facilitate things that appear physics-defying. In many cases, maybe the many G-men on the spot at engine/wheel landing sites were there to "disappear" the evidence that could identify the aircraft as not being the alleged, got as far as tugging an engine under a scaffolding, but were foiled by rubber-neck civilians with camera phones or similar.

Promotion of the NPT disinfo would be that the engine was planted. Of course, this has the similar logic flaws with the dubious premise of video fakery and holograms. Namely, if the perps are going to go to the effort of faking a plane crash using digital manipulation or holograms, then you'd think they'd be smart enough to know the make-and-model of the scape-goated commercial aircraft so that it could be rendered correctly (e.g., no pods underneath). Likewise, you'd think they'd be smart enough to plant an engine of the correct make-and-model for the scape-goated commercial aircraft, as well.

//

Matt Browning wrote: "And of course they did demo with remote thermite. The evidence was in the dust."

Not so fast. Thermite was only found in the samples that Dr. Jones was given. It was not found in the more thorough USGS samples, the Paul Lioy samples, or the RJ Lee Group samples (from the Banker's Trust building). Whereas the USGS provided raw data on what they measured, they did a poor job of analysis. Mr. Jeff Prager revisited this data, pointed out heavy metals and other curious elements (like Uranium), that these were found in correlated quantities sample-to-sample, and that they spell out a recipe for nuclear methods. The Paul Lioy samples also found those curious elements, but also didn't venture an opinion on why they were there.

One would think that a nuclear physicist like Dr. Jones would have been all over the raw data from the USGS samples to also point out the fishy elements and their correlations. You would think that he would have acknowledged the stark limitations imposed upon the tritium report and therefore would not have accepted it unquestioned and unchallenged as the final word on tritium at the WTC. You would think that a nuclear physicist wouldn't limit his "no-nukes" analysis to fission and fusion. Why no mention of neutron devices or the multitude of late-3rd generation (or early-adopter 4th generation) nuclear weapons?

It is into this created void that Dr. Jones tries to stuff super-duper nano-thermite (NT). It doesn't matter whether or NT played a role. What matters is that it could not have been the primary mechanism of destruction, which the good doctor led the science-challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to believe. How so?

When challenged that NT didn't have the brissance to achieve the observed pulverization, Dr. Jones amends his position by saying something like RDX was added. This introduces two problems. The first is that brissanty explosives/incendiaries are loud, and NIST's Dr. Sunder was able to say with a straight face when ruling out chemical-based devices of that nature that such decibel levels weren't observed; it would have been deafening within 1/2 mile. Among their ailments, witnesses and 1st responders did not report hearing loss or issues of that nature.

The second problem of mixing NT with RDX (or other substances) is really an exasperation of a fundamental problem of any chemical-based explosive/incendiary. Namely, high school chemistry easily calculates the quantities required to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, and those quantities are massive when considering NT alone. The more brissant the materials added, the more obscenely massive a high schooler can calculate the initial quantities. Oh, and these quantities being used to account for the duration of hot-spots are over-and-above and unspent from their original pulverization purposes, and it ain't all that Occam Razar. In another omission on Dr. Jones et al's part, no back-of-envelope calculations are made into this, because it translates into an unreasonable logistics hurdle.

Whereas Dr. Jones et al attributed six spikes in the release of gaseous output from the fuming WTC pile to NT, in September 2012 Dr. Jones admits in an off-hand moment "something maintained those hot-spots, (not just NT)."

The clues are there, and honest seekers of truth need to be looking for what that "something" was that maintained the hot-spots.

Assuming 6-12 4th generation nuclear devices per tower (probably some variant of neutron devices and x-ray lasers), then the hot-spots might very well be fizzled nuclear devices that have a higher probability of occuring when used in tandem.

BTW, when doing your research into 4th generation nuclear devices (including detours into Project Excalibur, Casaba-Howitzer, x-ray lasers), remember that their design makes trade-off's in various output yields and could be only 50% efficient with respect to utilizing the nuclear energy available. Most likely, they are variants of neutron devices (that are like fusion devices that allow the highly energetic neutrons to escape), because the neutrons can be aimed somewhat and doesn't leave lingering alpha/beta/gamma radiation. [A major flaw in all of the reports that no-nukers might provide is that none of them measured radiation ~~PROMPTLY~~, thoroughly, or systematically. 24-48 hours is sufficient for most radiation to dissipate.]

At any rate, "in for a penny, in for a pound." Dr. Jones faulty NT work and faulty "no-nukes" analysis/conclusions demonstrate how the 9/11 Truth Movement was duped. It was not left to chance.

//

Hide All / Expand All

No comments: