Friday, March 11, 2016

Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW

Hide All / Expand All


This article makes the case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices (FGND) were used on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center. In doing so, it discusses why the leading theory of Nano-Thermite proposed by many influential leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement does not go the whole distance and is therefore wrong. This work demonstrates evolution in the beliefs of the author when presented with new information, although much of this article's content has been published previously.

Certain quotations reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Hide All / Expand All


1. Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices & 9/11


2. Slaughtering the Nano-Thermite Sacred Cow


3. Running the numbers on NT


4. Test the Samples


5. Sleight of Hand


6. Maintaining the Under-Rubble Fires


7. Horse shoes, arches, and "steel doobies."


8. Controlling the Opposition


9. Efforts to Debunk 9/11 Nuclear Devices


10. Report 1: Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center


11. Report 2: Characterization of the Dust/Smoke by Paul Lioy et al


12. Report 3: Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers


13. High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions


14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift


15. Directed Energy


16. The History of W-54


17. Blackmail of Bush 1 & 2: Sales of the W-54


18. The Dirt on That


19. Dr. Thomas Cahill and the Continually Regenerated Fine Particles


20. Decontamination and First Responder Ailments


21. EMP and Electromagnetic Energy


22. Vehicle Damage


23. Hot and Spicy Thermitic Particulates and Cars


24. Conductive, Corrosive and Abrasive Dust and Vehicle Fires


25. Embrittlement


26. Cover-Up, Tight Security, and Destruction of Evidence


27. Nuclear Scientific Research


28. Summary: Fourth Generation Nuclear Devices


29. 9/11 Tetris: The Theory Stack with the Fewest Gaps


30. Acknowledgements and Credits


31. Enough to Alter Conclusions?

Hide All / Expand All

48 comments:

Emmanuel Goldstein said...

Is Maxwell C. Bridges a blogger or scientist? When did Mr. Bridges read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? I read it five years ago and know when someone is posting disinformation. So then that means Mr. Bridges is a 9/11 liar for truth. Dr. Wood does not make any claims. Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Mr. Bridges is doing. Dr. Wood is a forensic engineer and scientist. Dr. Wood conducts research and writes reports. That is what Dr. Wood does. Dr. Wood does not have a dog in this fight. If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it. ;-) ♥

IRREFUTABLE
https://youtu.be/r51a2HnAXCQ

Now we know which side of the fence Mr. Bridges is on and it's on the the side of the perpetrators of 9/11 and he has no credibility. Move along, nothing to see here...

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Dear Mr. Goldstein, (Part 1/4)

We have had discussions before, assuming you are one and the same who has been an active participant on Truth & Shadows and Facebook. My alias on T&S until recently was "Señor El Once", and its ownership is claimed all over this blog, not just this posting. Thus, through our direct interactions as well as those same interaction re-posted in other articles of this blog, you should already know the extent of my knowledge of Dr. Judy Wood's book and website. On T&S, I was its most effective champion, although in a left- and back-handed way... Until new evidence and research brought my understanding to a new level.

Regrettably on FB, a suspected agent (whose resume I have and whom I almost met in person) may have outed your true identity, Mr. Goldstein. I have no axe to grind with your identity, and will continue to respect your alias. It isn't important to our interactions.

Further, because your postings have been very cut-and-paste robotic and seemingly oblivious to earlier interactions from the same participant (me), "Emmanuel Goldstein" might be a team name (that the suspected agent wanted associated with a real person.)

Emmanuel Goldstein asked:
"Is Maxwell C. Bridges a blogger or scientist?"

Not relevant, and I'll not waste readers time bragging about my CV. Let's just say that I have enough science background to be a good researcher in knowing what is technically relevant and what isn't. I'm persistent enough to work below the surface of scientific bamboozlement frequently offered up to 9/11 truth seekers, seemingly from reputable & PhD'ed sources.

Emmanuel Goldstein asked:
"When did Mr. Bridges read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?"

Now that I clearly stated my alter egos, this is probably known. (See in the archives, an early [2011] feeble "Dr. Judy Wood and The Mister Honorific Banishment".)

Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"I read it five years ago and know when someone is posting disinformation."

When you read Dr. Wood's book isn't important. If we were to use your reasoning, I read it before you did and therefore I know even better than you when someone is posting disinformation.

Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"So then that means Mr. Bridges is a 9/11 liar for truth."

Mr. Goldstein, this is a classic "WTF?" moment. If you (1) don't point out specific passages from me and (2) don't substantiate what is not truthful in them, then your claims of me being a "liar" FAIL, fall into the category of ad hominem, and starts to hint about the reliability of you.

Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood does not make any claims."

Mr. Goldstein, you have hit paydirt with this very truthful claim! Dr. Wood does indeed ~not~ make any claims! I never said she did. And this proves to be a major weakness of her work: it can't be considered an end-station on our search for 9/11 Truth if it has no claims.

Therefore, this simple fact puts you into a bad light, Mr. Goldstein, for trying to usurp my newer work here (standing on Dr. Wood's shoulders) with her earlier & incomplete work.

// Part 1/4

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 2/4
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Mr. Bridges is doing."

Mr. Goldstein, you forget that Dr. Wood has a website, has published a very handsome, expensive book, and has several persistent (if brain-dead) minions such as yourself who are active on blogs. Thus, it cannot be said that Dr. Wood has not been "tasked with the job of swaying public opinion." She has. The Anonymous Physicist called it right. (Expand All comments and search for him in my article.)

So this premise FAILS, too.

Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood is a forensic engineer and scientist. Dr. Wood conducts research and writes reports."

And my addition to this statement is that Dr. Wood conducts research very poorly and writes disjointed & unsubstantiative & non-concluding reports. My 2nd and 3rd pass through Dr. Wood's book began to unravel the buried deceit.

A layoff gave me more time in the spring & summer of 2015 to perform my own research into just the publicly available information on DEW and FGNW at my local institution of higher education and its operational state around 9/11/2001. This is where the deceit became clear.

Example 1. Had she done even half-assed research into DEW, she'd have discovered its limitations: namely optics and energy sources. She never should have been championing anything that could have been malframed as "beams from space."

Example 2. She never addressed public & valid criticism of her website, which she re-purposed almost verbatim into her glossy book.

Example 3. She doesn't mention Dr. Doug Beason's 2005 work "THE E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons Will change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought" or any equivalent work that even middling research efforts would bring to light.

Example 4. Her website several times starts down the path of nuclear means and then abruptly stops. The dirt as a radiation mitigation technique is a significant omission going from her website to her book. Her "research" into nuclear sources is hugely poor and stops abruptly. How could her nuclear research ~NOT~ come across the efforts of Dr. Andre Gsponer some of which pre-dates her website by a decade?

Given the antics of the "you-are-either-with-us-or-against-us" crowd and the heavy (employment / reputation) penalty already paid by Dr. Wood, I do not blame her for the non-claims of her book and tons of unconnected dangling innuendo.

But I do blame you, Mr. Goldstein, for not recognizing these factors when you come to my blog and try to school me about Dr. Wood's work. You're the one needing schooling. Dr. Wood has stated that her efforts were ~not~ intended as the END STATION of 9/11 understanding.

Yet you -- brain-dead disinfo warrior that you are -- are over eager to park 9/11 understanding into exactly such a cul de sac, dead end, limited hang-out.
// Part 2/4

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 3/4
Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"That is what Dr. Wood does. Dr. Wood does not have a dog in this fight. If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it."

Because this blog and its re-purposed discussions pertaining to Dr. Wood's work demonstrates repeatedly that I have read and closely studied Dr. Wood's book, I am one of the few who does have standing to dispute it.

You out yourself as not having read my article, Mr. Goldstein, before making your comment.

Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Now we know which side of the fence Mr. Bridges is on and it's on the the side of the perpetrators of 9/11 and he has no credibility. Move along, nothing to see here..."

Oooh, too bad Mr. Goldstein. This is a major FAIL with regards to your attempted hypnotic suggestion.

You addressed ZERO points brought up in the actual article under which you comment.

If you were a sincere seeker of Truth, (1) you would acknowledge the true limitations of Dr. Wood's work -- she purposely & admittedly doesn't go the entire distance and "makes no claims" and (2) you would see that this work from me stands on the shoulder's of Dr. Wood's work, rescues the nuggets of truth from many disinfo sources (including Dr. Wood's), and takes understanding to the next level: fourth generation nuclear devices.

Emmanuel Goldstein stated:
"Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Mr. Bridges is doing."

Mr. Goldstein, you forget that Dr. Wood has a website, has published a very handsome, expensive book, and has several persistent (if brain-dead) minions such as yourself who are active on blogs. Thus, it cannot be said that Dr. Wood has not been "tasked with the job of swaying public opinion." She has. The Anonymous Physicist called it right. (Expand All comments and search for him in my article.)

So this premise FAILS, too.

// Part 3/4

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 4/4
I apologize for the copy-and-paste mistakes that ended up repeated passages and ended up needing this fourth part. This version should fix that.

// Part 4/4
Maxwell C. Bridges

Emmanuel Goldstein said...

ANATOMY OF A COVERUP

Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Dr. Steven Jones.

Dr. James Fetzer never destroys Mr. Richard Gage.

Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.

Dr. Steven Jones never destroys Dr. James Fetzer.

Mr. Richard Gage never destroys Dr. Steven Jones, but actually covers up for him.

None of the above characters destroy Mr. Bill Deagle, and Mr. Deagle never destroys them.

None of the above characters destroy Mr. Dimitri Khalezov, and Khalezov never destroys them.

There are many other names that go into the above category as well and NONE of them destroy each other, but ALL of them attempt to destroy Dr. Judy Wood…

It is widely known that the last time Dr. Judy Wood voluntarily spoke with Dr. James Fetzer or exchanged emails was February 2008. That is, it has been over eight years since Dr. Wood HAS NOT voluntarily spoken with Dr. Fetzer or emailed him. So why is Dr. Fetzer still so obsessed with Dr. Wood???

Dr. Wood has never spoken with Mr. Gage, yet Mr. Gage promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood at nearly every interview he does – if not every interview. Dr. Fetzer also promotes disinformation about Dr. Wood in nearly every interview he does. Yet none of them have ever refuted anything Dr. Wood has presented.

Yes, if you don’t like the lie behind door#1, they show you the lie behind door#2. Then, if you don’t like the lie behind door#2, they show you the lie behind door#3. Any lie is ok with them as long as it keeps people from looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This is why “thermite” is ok with those promoting “mini-nukes,” and why “mini-nukes” is ok with those promoting “thermite,” etc. Even Dimitri Khalezov’s maxi-nukes or megga-nukes are ok with Mr. Gage and Dr. Fetzer.

WTC7 on 9/11/2001 https://youtu.be/j-uyuHPaniY

Mr. Richard Gage got a lotta splainin to do! No sound of explosives! – No explosives! What does this tell you about Richard Gage and his agenda?

Dr. Wood does not make any claims. Dr. Wood is not an Internet blogger tasked with the job of swaying public opinion like Richard Gage and his government run organization is doing. Dr. Wood is a forensic engineer and scientist. Dr. Wood conducts research and writes reports. That is what Dr. Wood does. Dr. Wood does not have a dog in this fight. If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it.

IRREFUTABLE https://youtu.be/r51a2HnAXCQ

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Dear Mr. Goldstein, Part 1/3

Thank you for your comments. I'll take them at face value, but will note that neither one of them addresses the FGNW topic, nor does your 2nd comment address any point from my response to your 1st comment. Both of your comments appear to have been authored for another goal / forum and were simply re-purposed here, where they are of interest but only marginally apply.

What bothers me from such border-line "bot-ish" behavior is that when you copy-and-paste from previous work, you & I are only marginally having a human-to-human conversation. As my comments earlier and below display, I sincerely consider your words and respond accordingly & uniquely (except as far as re-purposing well-authored snippets is proven applicable.) Pasting the entirety of your comments from other sources does not give my words equivalent sincerity or respect, because it is as if you never read them.

In direct response to your last comment, I'm having issues with the word "destroys" in both its literal and figurative meanings and the object being acted on, namely a person rather than "their work" or "their premise" when you wrote:

"Dr. X never destroys Dr. Y."

I don't think it should be the noble task of anyone to "destroy" literally or figuratively another person.

However, your point is well taken that their respective negative efforts against each other is small compared to what they apply to Dr. Judy Wood. I AGREE largely with the sentiments conveyed in your comment... except for [a] the videos that I haven't watched yet (so can't comment) and [b] the final paragraph, which is a copied snipped from your previous comment and already addressed by me in part 2/4 and part 3/4 above.

I spent many minutes trying to think of appropriate improvements:

"Dr. X never destroys the work of Dr. Y."
"Dr. X never reviews in detail the work of Dr. Y."
"Dr. X does not reviews in detail the work of Dr. Y."

While closer to the truth, all of the above have issues and do not apply equally to all persons and their review of others. This actually exposes a great weakness in the 9/11TM and dovetails nicely with your premise of a coordinated cover-up.
// Part 1/3

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 2/3
In an academic setting, participants in a discussion and their premises are assumed to be sincere. When errors are discovered, they are acknowledged, and the premise is refined accordingly, or discarded. Failures can still educate and may have valid components worth keeping & studying.

In a PR setting liable to infiltration with disinformation, the assumption does not always hold about the sincerity of participants or their premises. Thus, when errors are discovered, they are not (or rarely) acknowledged; the premise is not (or rarely) refined accordingly in the copy-and-paste defenses. An agenda tactic of "opponents" isn't just to get the premise discarded, but to remove educational opportunities afforded by components of the premise worth studying, if not keeping.

Many of the PhD'ed participants (or leaders) of the 911TM give lip-service to the academic integrity of their pursuits, yet fall victim to (or purposely perpetuate) tactics of the disinformation game. Errors aren't acknowledged in their own work, while being quick about using errors in other premises to discard those premises as well as (valid) components that would otherwise be worth studying, if not keeping.

Dr. Judy Wood's book "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?" illustrates this phenomenon quite handily. Not ever addressed A-to-Z and over eagerly dismissed at the first whiff of any component therein being deemed "inapplicable or wrong."

"If someone has not read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, they have no standing to dispute it... Dr. Wood does not make any claims."

I've read it, therefore I have standing to dispute it. I agree that Dr. Wood does not make any claims, which is simultaneously her book's strength as well as its weakness. Strength: crafty Dr. Wood tries to get readers to focus on the evidence that too many other theories ignore. Weakness: Dr. Wood's book, having no claims, is not the END STATION and therefore should not be promoted as if she were.

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 3/3
Mr. Goldstein, to the larger point of your comment, there is some valid triangularization to be derived from the various 9/11TM base camps (of limited hangouts), which -- like laser-beams in mist or smoke -- reveals coordinated agendas to cover over truth.

Mr. Goldstein, you project the image that the work of Dr. Wood is a victim. (Paraphrased) "None of the other 9/11 base camps (e.g., NT or Nukes) has this book, much less is disputing, addressing, or incorporating specific elements." This is most certainly a red flag.

Unfortunately, a red flag must also be called on Dr. Wood's book.

[1] "Dr. Wood does not make any claims." I don't blame her; her personal cost has been high. It is enough to shed light on anomalous evidence. I've found several instances, though, of errors in her book that should have been corrected in the many years between being originally authored for the website and later being re-purposed in her book. Criticism of elements of her web content should have been addressed in her book as well. Her book needed a detailed review of the current state of DEW and Nukes. Dr. Andre Gsponer and FGNW are major omissions.

I'll put my money where my mouth is. Here is my Raw Nuclear DEW Research which goes a long way to providing a fuzzy picture of the capabilities of DEW, Nukes, and their hybrid-bastard-offspring FGNW at around the turn of the century. The last two references in Part 2 are the most important.

- Doug Beason, Ph.D : The E-BOMB: How America's New Directed Energy weapons Will Change the Way Future Wars Will Be Fought 2005

- Andre Gsponer : Fourth Generation Nuclear Weaspons: Military effectivenss and collateral effects. 2008

If I could find it, why couldn't the educated Jones, Wood, Fetzer, Harrit, Legge, Ryan, Gage, etc.?

[2] Nuclear means are the natural growth path of (Dr. Wood's) DEW. DEW is the natural growth path of nukes. (Disinfo agent and publicity-hound Dimitri Khalezov's deep underground nukes don't even match the observed destruction and are framed wrong.) Sincere champions of both should be borrowing from one another and building a new paradigm: FGNW. Yet they seem to represent polar camps incapable of acknowledging truth and validity in components (but not entirety) of the other.

They didn't. But I do. "RTFM" (above): Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW).

I apologize in advance for any dings from this comment that make it back to Dr. Judy Wood, the person. IMHO Dr. Wood is the third leg (along with NT and Nukes) in the disinformation "stool" to keep the public from discovering (FGNW) nuclear involvement in 9/11 at the WTC. I suspect her work got too close resulting in a close colleague being killed under mysterious circumstances and the break-up of the Dr. Steven Jones, Dr. James Fetzer, and Dr. Judy Wood 9/11 three-some. As reflected on her website (but not her book), she may have been told to stop various avenues of research. She could live & publish whatever she wanted as long as "Dr. Wood does not make any claims" and does not come to any obvious (nuclear) conclusions. Furthermore, because she was a bit of a loose cannon, they kept her in line by personal attacks to frame her as "nutty, kooky, loony".

In conclusion, Mr. Goldstein, you should recognize how my FGNW efforts stand on the valid components of (disinformation) sources including Dr. Wood to take understanding of 9/11 to a new level.

Please compose fresh comments directly relevant to the FGNW discussion. Prove that you have read the work, and acknowledge the legitimate areas where Dr. Wood's work is (a) re-used and (b) not used. Please refrain from brain-dead copy-&-paste comments that continually try to park understanding at Dr. Wood's work that she herself says is not the end station.

// Part 3/3

Emmanuel Goldstein said...

Dear Mr. Bridges,

What unit of the United States Government do you work for or is that classified information Mr. Bridges? Covering-up DEW used on 9/11 appears to be your priority.

♥ The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 ♥
2015-09-26 2:19 By Tomfarrar Talley | Red Ice Creations

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=34375

CONTROLLED EFFECTS
by Dr. William L. Baker*

"The effects can vary in the type of damage mechanism (e.g., blast/fragment, thermal, or ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE [c-DEW: been there, done that]) as well as the magnitude of the energy deposited on the target so that it will be just enough to defeat the target while minimizing collateral damage."
...

"Scientists will have to overcome technological hurdles, such as the production and storage of antimatter, the ability to propagate sensory information, OR THE ABILITY TO HARNESS AND EXTRACT ENERGY FROM THE ENVIRONMENT [Hurricane Erin 2001: been there, done that], before these sciencefiction concepts will become reality."

https://web.archive.org/web/20040608025356/http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Jun04/DE0401.html

*Dr. William L. Baker retired on 1/2/10 as the Chief Scientist of the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. With an annual budget of more than $300 million, the directorate is responsible for all of the Air Force research and development of lasers, high-power microwave and advanced optical technologies. The directorate conducts advanced technology research to support major applications such as airborne lasers, large optical systems for space situational awareness, airborne high-power microwaves, long-range non-lethal weapons and improvised explosive device defeat. The Chief Scientist is the directorate's primary adviser on scientific and technical matters and the primary authority for the technical content and quality of the science and technology portfolio.

Dr. Baker was born in Columbus, Ohio. He received his doctorate in nuclear physics from The Ohio State University in 1969 and served four years on active duty in the Air Force as a nuclear research officer. In 1973 he became a civilian scientist at the Air Force Weapons Laboratory where he performed and led high-energy plasma and pulse power research to develop new techniques to simulate nuclear weapon effects. His work in directed energy weapon technology began with high-energy particle beam weapons. Dr. Baker led a joint effort to develop a unique accelerator and used it to demonstrate stable beam propagation in open air. He then created and led the Air Force high-power microwave weapon technology program. As Chief Scientist, he led research and development on high-energy laser weapons technology and the application of advanced optics to space situational awareness. He is a nationally recognized contributor and leader across the entire spectrum of directed energy technologies. He has been president of the Directed Energy Professional Society for the past two years.

Dr. Baker has written more than 50 publications in nuclear physics, plasma physics, pulsed power and directed energy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20131214121916/http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/Biographies/Display/tabid/225/Article/107794/dr-william-l-baker.aspx

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Goldstein, Part 1/2

I'll start off by apologizing for the broken link in Part 3/3 of my last set of comments. The correct link is: Raw Nuclear DEW Research.

Thank you for the links to the articles The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 by Tomfarrar Talley. I was not aware of that evidence.

Also, thank you for the link to Long-Term Challenges by Dr. William L. Baker. Maybe because it is buried in the Internet way-back machine, I did not come across Dr. Baker's article when I was doing my research above. I ran across many more references that covered the same information, such as Dr. Doug Beason's work.

Directed energy weapons (DEW) comprise a broad spectrum of technology, almost as broad as the spectrum of EM energy being harnessed. The Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate have their own goals and purposes (airborne weapons platforms), which then impose limitations on the DEW devices themselves such as portability and health of the weapons' operators. Further, optics and medium of energy travel (air) are huge considerations, because not all wavelengths of EM energy can be transmitted through the atmosphere without loss or dispersion. This, in turn, translates back into what energy sources (typically chemical reactions) produce coherent energy at useful wavelengths for efficient transmission through the atmosphere. If the source of the coherent energy is chemical reactions, this correlates then to specific quantities of the chemicals. With the exception of the ground-based lasers, the mobile platforms are limited by weight of the chemicals that then impose practical limitation on the energy discharge and duration.

It should be noted that the effectiveness of such mobile platforms' DEW often depend on the target. Targets such as aircraft, missiles, and even satillites have propulsion, weapons, or energy sources that are highly volitile and can be compromised by a focused energy beam there. The WTC didn't have this built-in weakness.

Three factors rule out these types of airborne mobile DEW devices from being deployed on 9/11 as the primary mechanism of destruction.

[1] The observed evidence. The WTC destruction initiated within the structures (80 floors up) and not at the roof. Mobile platform DEW would have been line of sight and initiating at the roof.

[2] The energy required for the observed outcome. The towers did not have "propulsion, weapons, or energy sources" within that could be comprised and aid their pulverization. The observed destruction energy can be extrapolated into beam energy or power (energy times time), which then can be translated into an exact amount of chemicals needed to produce the beam energy. Suffice it to say, the amounts of materials are significant and could not come from one such mobile platform.

[3] Optics and energy transfer. DEW planted within the structure would not have issues with atmosphere (e.g., optics) dispersing the energy beam and making it weaker.

// Part 1/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 2/2
Alas, Mr. Goldstein, I now turn to your lead-off paragraph: "What unit of the United States Government do you work for or is that classified information Mr. Bridges? Covering-up DEW used on 9/11 appears to be your priority."

El-Oh-El, Mr. Goldstein! You've posted three comments to this particular blog dedicated to a specific subject -- fourth generation nuclear weapons (FGNW) -- and have yet to reference a single element from that article. You neither acknowledge what is correct nor point out what might be in error.

In a "WTF moment", Mr. Goldstein, you accuse me of "covering-up DEW used on 9/11."

This accusation alone proves that you (a) have not read my article, (b) do not understand it, (c) have disinformation purposes for making such ignorant and attacking statements and for parking discussion at disinfo Dr. Wood and/or airborne platforms, or (d) all of the above.

FGNW are by definition DEW devices.

Thus, no cover-up here on my part, Mr. Goldstein.

What type of person goes to an article about a specific theme, accuses the article of dastardly deeds without specifics, and makes copy&paste comments irrelevant to the theme, while also insulting its author?

Mr. Goldstein, maybe you should answer your own lead-off question: "What unit of the United States Government do you work for or is that classified information?"

// Part 2/2
Bruecke = Bridges

M. C. Bruecke said...

From The Miracle of Directed Energy Technology on 9/11 by Tomfarrar Talley 2015-09-26.

The following image shows "an open Bible fused to a hunk of steel wreckage, with some of the steel overlapping the pages after it was softened by extremely high heat, or some other process."
http://redicecreations.com/ul_img/343741.jpg

The following image shows "an icon of St. Spyridon. The silver around the icon had melted, but the paper icon had not been burnt."

http://redicecreations.com/ul_img/343745.jpg

According to the article:
- Melting point of silver is 1,763°F.
- Steel melts at 2,500°F.
- Auto-ignition point of paper has a range of from 440-470°F

Obviously, the official government theory about 9/11 cannot explain such evidence, and in fact does not even try.

The 9/11TM via AE9/11Truth also does not address this evidence, because NT (combined with any combination of other incendiaries / explosives) would indicate heat.

Whereas we have evidence (e.g., under-rubble hot-spots) of high heat at the WTC, the gist of the above is that high heat may not have been what caused such an anomaly. If the steel were softened or the silver melted, the temperatures involved would have ignited the paper.

Section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift begins to describe how this anomaly could have been created. If the FGND expelled neutrons with lots of energy, these would be highly penetrating into materials. The molecular structure of the materials can determine what effects it might have. For example, the atomic structure that makes metals better at conducting electricity (and paper no good at all) plays a role in how the material will react to neutron bombardment and/or expelled energy at EM wavelengths on the order of molecular distances.

Being the devil's advocate for a moment, further study of the first image does not indicate to me a fusion of the paper pages into the metal. Yes, the metal has been bent and indeed was softened by something. However, the metal has lots of "cake-y" residue on it. This is what the pages are fused with: not the metal. That "cake-y" residue is concrete and the aggregates in concrete. The energy source that penetrated the concrete and then turn it into this tough, residue (and in other cases "blobs") could be the very neutron energy described by my blog (and is in the category of DEW).

In summary, I disagree with the premise that the pages are fused with the steel. I believe that the concrete was dustified and hardened after it settled and captured this bible. The steel could bent by mechanical forces or softened by heating forces. However, when and how the steel was acted on does not have to equate to when the bible landed on it and got fused into the concrete caking the steel.

More interesting questions are: where was this bible originally before the destruction of the WTC? Was it in the church?

Thank you again, Mr. Goldstein, for bringing these two new pieces of evidence to my attention.

//

kawika said...

Section 22 Vehicle Damage

"The pattern of vehicle fires was not chaotic. The vehicles affected were line-of-sight and some at quite some distance. It didn't affect shaded vehicles or those around corners..."

There were cars on Barclay in the shadow of WTC7 that were torched. Some caught fire, others didn't. The Barclay Bank building sustained a direct hit from dust/debris being funneled up Washington Street, many windows were broken but no fires were started inside that structure.

Vehicles between Barclay and Vesey on West Broadway were not affected universally.

A pumper truck at the intersection of Barclay and Washington did not catch fire, while the one parked behind the SE corner of WTC7 was torched.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Kawika (I assume),

Thank you for your contribution.

P.S. I have a life and am not always on-line. Comments are on moderation, but mostly so I don't miss any and can respond thoughtfully in due fashion on my schedule. I am fair and may publish most anything but blatant spam, but on my schedule. Don't take it personally when comments aren't instantaneously published and live.

// Bruecke = Bridges

kawika said...

You can remove this comment if it doesn't serve the purpose.

I'm a bit concerned that all of this great content is being mixed with Judy Wood. She is making some serious errors right out of the gate.

I'll be glad to share the evidence if you open a suitable channel. I prefer Skype.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Kawika,

You wrote: "I'm a bit concerned that all of this great content is being mixed with Judy Wood."

I appreciate the worry, but your concerns are already addressed. How so?

For starters, a good portion "of this great content" came from Dr. Judy Wood's work; the mix has already happened. Off of the top of my head, the sections on vehicle damage and "The Dirt on That" have origins that can be traced to Dr. Wood. The acknowledgements section includes Dr. Wood, for whose efforts I am truly grateful.

Secondly, you'll note that my derivative FGNW effort does not accept or include everything from Dr. Wood's work. You wrote: "She is making some serious errors right out of the gate." My disagreement is of the split-hairs variety. Out of the gate, she comes on strong. It is the back stretch where she makes serious errors: not enough research into the publicly available information. She doesn't even make it to the home stretch, because -- as her die-hard fan, Mr. Goldstein, points out in a cut&paste way -- "Dr. Wood makes no claims."

The paradox of Dr. Wood's work is that (a) it has collected lots of great evidence that are not addressed by other mainstream 9/11 theories like NT, (b) it has niggly disinformation in framing and on where it stops or doesn't go, (c) it makes no claims [anymore] so can never be an end station [despite what her die-hard fans project], (d) despite inapplicable but interesting information, despite misinformation [niggly errors never corrected], despite maybe even disinformation [if pointed out, I'd probably agree],... despite all of this, Dr. Wood with DEW is closer to the truth than NT. My derivative FGNW is technically DEW, but not of the "beams from space" variety.

In section 29 9/11 Tetris I mention the issue briefly. "Nuggets of Truth" must be actively mined, re-fined, and re-purposed from (dis)information sources, because often they are the only source of information. In a disinformation world, you must "distrust but verify." In other words, if the public wants the truth from a rigged game that permits disinformation, sources of such should not be dismissed with prejudice without A-Z study and material classification for validity and applicability.

Thus, I won't unmix Dr. Wood's efforts out of the FGNW work, despit her work having issues.

You wrote: "I'll be glad to share the evidence if you open a suitable channel. I prefer Skype."

Don't let me rain on your parade, but this particular FGNW blog entry and its discussion isn't appropriate for more diversion into Dr. Wood than I have already given it. However, discussing Dr. Wood was the original purpose of this entry: Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices. Too bad my debate partners fumbled in a spectacular fashion. (I let you read the sorid tale of Mr. Ruff and his no-show debunking of either Dr. Wood or FGNW.)

I prefer online forums or email with a written medium not real-time, because I have more time to order my thoughts and convey them appropriately. My email address can be found hiding on this blog.

//

kawika said...

Judy Wood makes serious errors out of the gate. For this reason I scrutinize everything else that she says.

Major Error--Steel Was Dustified.

The steel was recycled. What did China and India buy ships full of? Dust?

See PDF page 40 for details

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/pdf/9-11_Debris_An_Investigation_of_Ground_Zero_by_Matt_Nelson.pdf

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Kawika, (Part 1/2)

By all means and more power to you for scrutinizing everything that Dr. Wood writes. Like I always say about so labeled "disinformation sources" as paraphrased from President Reagan, you must "distrust but verify." Sure, the verification process might invalidate some aspects of it, but must be carried out for all aspects, lest any nuggets of truth not be seen, rescued, and re-purposed.

You said that a major error in Dr. Wood's work was: "Steel Was Dustified."

You then provide (excellent) references from Mr. Matt Nelson (that I have not finished reading yet.)

I don't want to be put into the position of defending Dr. Wood on this point, but feel compelled to demonstrate how I have championed her work in a back- and left-handed fashion.

Technically, if any steel at all was dustified by exotic means, such as my FGNW, then Dr. Wood's statement is true. The significant percentage of tiny iron spheres found in the dust samples from the lobby of an adjacent building by the RJ Lee group proves the point: steel was dustified. (AE9/11Truth attributes these iron spheres to the by-product of the NT chemical process, but mathematically suggests massive quantities. Instead of attributing the iron spheres to a chemical reaction, maybe they could calculate it to amount of steel dustified.)

Furthermore, in my studying the pictures of the debris pile and statements from those on site, missing from the rubbage were content from the middle of the building. Not just office furnishings, but the thinner steel beam assemblies supporting the steel pans (also missing) on which they pour concrete.

In my trips around the 9/11 block, I observed how the particular theme of "steel quantity" was misused by DEW opponents, but also by its chief champion, Dr. Wood. Dr. Greg Jenkins (part of Dr. Steven Jones' team) used the expression "Steel Was Dustified" to mean "ALL of the steel was dustified." He then (ball-park) estimated the total amount of steel in the towers and with the help of the temperature that steel vaporizes (turns to gas), calculated the amount of energy required to be huge, like on the order of magnitudes at the sun or something unreasonable, and then concluded dustification / vaporization was improbable. A blatant mischaracterization and purposeful malframing by Dr. Jenkins, because pictures of the debris pile clearly show many instances of the wall assemblies. Clearly, Dr. Wood knew this and had not been championing (to my knowledge) that "all" of the steel had been dustified; her most prominent example was actually of the WTC-2 "spire" that survived several seconds after the surrounding building fell, before it, too, seemingly turned to dust. Dr. Wood offered no rebuttal, no correct framing, and has not been correcting the meme to "SOME of the steel was dustified." It is as if each had roles to play in this disinformation theatre.

// Part 1/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 2/2

I do not doubt that much of steel was recovered and recycled. Scanning through your reference to Mr. Nelson's work, he writes: "No known record or chart accounts for all the steel actually measured by weight, beyond the details I could find here. As will be seen below in “Truckloads” and “Barges,” we
can only get an idea using final numbers of total debris amount, which I believe was largely
figured by volume projections based on the regular aerial mapping by LIDAR."


A curious way to twist this is: With all of their record keeping and GPS tracking, they cannot account for all of the steel. The high percentage of iron spheres in the dust indicates an energetic process. Therefore, plenty of room is available for the conclusion that: "SOME of the steel could have been dustified."

Of course, there is also room in the missing amounts and tight security & GPS control to conclude: some of the steel may have had lingering defects and necessitated being disappeared in the clean-up process. The fire-sale of scrap steel to other countries? I speculate that radioactivity and/or embrittlement effects (from neutron bombardment of the FGNW) made the steel second-rate. All the better at bargain-basement prices to quickly cut it up, ship it out of the country, and melt it down overseas.

Mr. Nelson's material deserves a more thorough ready from me.

// Part 2/2



M. C. Bruecke said...

When a person has a suspicion of FGNW on 9/11 and then reviews Mr. Matt Nelson's work, the collaborating evidence becomes glaring. Even when first responders talk about heat during the event, it makes more sense as emission from nuclear detonations.

Not completely sure where Mr. Nelson's work was headed (haven't read that far). Doesn't matter, because the nuggets of truth are what are essential.

Thanks you for bringing this to my attention. //

Emmanuel Goldstein said...

Feed my sheeple with disinformation? Who's God do you follow Mr. bridges?

Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that a type of directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 "research", including the unscientific '9/11 Commission Report'. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.

Emmanuel Goldstein said...

Whose God not who's God, sorry for the typo.


By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, you know from the EVIDENCE that the Twin Towers turned to dust in mid-air never hitting the ground.

>Bombs don't do that.
>Thermite does not do that.
>Thermate does not do that.
>Nano-enhanced thermite does not do that.
>Nano-thermite does not do that.
>New-and-improved super-duper mini-micro-nano thermite does not do that.
>Firecrackers do not do that.
>Fire does not do that.
>Nukes do not do that.
>Megga nukes do not do that.
>Milli-nukes do not do that.
>Mini-nukes do not do that.
>Nano-nukes cannot do that.
>A wrecking ball cannot do that.
>A slingshot cannot do that.
>Missiles cannot do that.

We know this because we know those things above involve Kinetic Energy and/or Thermal Energy and we know that the "dustification" was done without Kinetic Energy and without Thermal Energy. That is, "dustification" was not done with high heat (Thermal Energy) nor with some form of Kinetic Energy (wrecking ball, projectile, gravity collapse). The building was not cooked to death nor was it beaten to death. So Kinetic Energy Weapons (KEW) did not destroy the buildings nor did Thermal Energy Weapons (TEW) destroy the buildings. But we know that Energy was Directed somehow (and controlled within fairly precise boundaries) to cause the building to turn to dust in mid air. That is, some kind of (cold) Directed Energy that was used as a weapon (cDEW) had to have done this. Energy was directed and manipulated within the material such that it came apart without involving high heat (fire, welding materials such as thermite) and without having something fly through the air and hit it (bullets, missile, bombs, wrecking ball, a giant hammer, or many micro hammers)

kawika said...

There is no dustification of steel. This would take an impossible quantity of energy. The dust (actually powder)is concrete, drywall and fireproofing.

If you insist on this dustification claim, then you need to identify where the energy input came from.

I have posted links to the steel recycling facts.

Judy Wood did not do any physical evidence collection.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Goldstein, (Part 1/2)

I would welcome your participation here, except that you aren't being genuine. Exactly zero of your five comments were relevant to the FGNW article. They addressed nothing specific therein as being wrong (or right). Instead, your participation here has been copy&paste except for doing minor editing in the intro to aim attacks at me.

The following isn't even a comprehensive list of Google search results from all the OTHER places on the internet where you (or your minions) posted the EXACT SAME CONTENT as your last two comments here.

- July 24, 2014 at 6:45 am
- August 5, 2014 at 1:02 pm
- August 19, 2014 (?)
- Aug 25, 2014 at 8:23 am
- September 10, 2014 at 9:48 AM
- 2014-09-11
- November 16, 2014 at 12:59 am
- November 18, 2014 at 12:26 pm
- November 29, 2014 at 8:58 AM
- March 20, 2015 at 1:16 pm
- March 21, 2016 at 2:45 AM

Repetition, dear Mr. Goldstein, does not make it right, particularly when the repetition demonstrates neither learning, nor growth, nor modification based on the posting effort and the responses generated.
// Part 1/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 2/2
Here is the real-world analogy. I was able to successfully defend Dr. Wood's 2010 book from nay-sayers, because they threw brain-dead copy&paste rebuttals based on Dr. Jenkins half-assed work from 2007. Before looking at the merits of their arguments, the debunkers come to bat with two strikes against them: (1) older work does not know about newer work, and (2) an incomplete review cannot debunk a complete work, particularly if disinformation might be at play.

Mr. Goldstein, your source material from 2014 knew nothing of what would be in this 2016 FGNW work. To be sure, your source content addresses nothing from FGNW and attempts the disinformation trick of malframing nuclear devices. Your deceit is becoming glaringly obvious.

- FGNW is DEW.
- FGNW is properly framed nuclear.
- Dr. Wood does not POWER her DEW speculation with anything real-world.
- Dr. Wood does a disinfo smear on nuclear devices by framing them improperly. Nuclear power sources are the most obvious sources of the massive energy required for "dustification".

I do not respect people who argue from a position of ignorance. Mr. Goldstein, you have not read the article above. Yet here you are, playing your copy&paste games thinking that your old shit is even relevant to new FGNW. You are being quite deceitful.

Here's a news flash: Dr. Wood's work is not the end station. It was not championed as such by Dr. Wood, and shouldn't be positioned or defended as such by you. Dr. Wood expected someone else to stand on her work's shoulders and advance understanding to the next level. FGNW is that next level.

Either make comments directly relevant to the FGNW article, or go away. I will not approve any more comments from you whose content (>70%) is found (via Google) to be copy&pasted from your previous spamming of internet forums and cannot be connected to FGNW or this discussion.

P.S. "I am a religious fanatic, but Truth is what I'm fanatical about."

// Part 2/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Kawika,

You wrote: "There is no dustification of steel. This would take an impossible quantity of energy. The dust (actually powder)is concrete, drywall and fireproofing."

"Dustification" might indeed be the wrong word. You should review Section 14. FGND: Nuclear Paradigm Shift (and its source) to learn what destructive outcomes are possible with FGND. As shown from my editing to make it relevant to 9/11, obviously I am very much partial to the designed outcome of "ablating": If surface heating is sufficiently strong, the material will vaporize (i.e., "ablate") and by reaction a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.

Further, my wild-ass speculation into the subject is that these FGND had two main outputs, (1) energy at a specific wavelength and (2) highly energetic neutrons, and dialed-back side-effects by design & implementation of (3) heat-wave, (4) blast-wave, and (5) EMP.

(1) If the specific wavelengths of emitted energy is on the order of molecular distances, any number of possible outcomes could be expected, including "dustification" in the sense that molecules might lose or have re-arranged bonds on a micro-level and therefore no longer represents the same recognizable, cohesive material on a macro-level.

(2) A similar argument can be made about neutron bombardment, except the energy being delivered is much higher and much more penetrating, leading to ablating.

I agree that most of the dust was concrete, drywall and fireproofing. This in itself is a large energy sink. However, all groups who sampled the dust found significant percentages of iron. The NT faction of the 9/11TM diverts us and says this is the resultant of NT reacting with steel. I disagree, because (a) this represents massive quantities of NT and (b) doesn't explain under-rubble hot-spots. On the other side, FGNW explains the iron spheres in the dust as ablatement.

I agree that, whether dustifying or ablating, massive amounts of energy are required, but are possible with the energy available in excess to FGND.

You wrote: "If you insist on this dustification claim, then you need to identify where the energy input came from."

Shit, Mr. Kawika! Are you guilty of the same offense as Mr. Goldstein of not reading the article that you are make comments under? I'll give you a pass this time and encourage you to read Section 14.

You wrote: "I have posted links to the steel recycling facts."

Indeed, and they were excellent. However, despite their anal retentive GPS bean-counting of all recovered steel, they do not account for it all. There's no denying the copious amounts of iron spheres in the dust. Plenty of room for some steel being ablated into tiny iron spheres.

You wrote: "Judy Wood did not do any physical evidence collection."

I agree. However, she did go there and take pictures. The dirt was an important contribution. Moreover, she did collect many many images of the destruction and correlated them to map positions, which greatly assisted being able to understand the extent of the destruction.

//

kawika said...

OK, I read #14, but can't make any comments one way or the other.

I guess a few questions might be in order here.

How many FGND devices would you think necessary to bring down one tower?
Where would they be located?

If located in the core, would they have the capability to eject the exterior sections, keeping in mind that they were either 35 or 60 feet of generally open office space away from the core. Also keep in mind that the exterior was mostly glass, so the pressure wave would have a limited surface to act upon.

I still maintain that Wood's main premise that the steel was dustified is false, because the recycling figures refute this.

The iron in the powder, I believe is explained by Jones/Harrit as the by product of the nanothermite reaction.

There are several examples of eroded steel (FEMA 403, Appendix C)but those erosions are fairly random, isolated to relatively small sections, while the rest of the member remains pristine.

Here is a report, pried loose by myself in 2013, which shows another WTC7 beam with severe erosion.

http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/wtc/502-WTC-Astaneh-PPT-containing-photos-shot-on--Oct-8-2001-Final-for-Archives.pdf

Was WTC7 attacked with a FGND also?

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Kawika, Part 1/2

You asked: "How many FGND devices would you think necessary to bring down one tower? Where would they be located?"

Wild-ass speculation. Video evidence and witness testimony had detonations "boom-boom-boom" at a cadence that could be counted. It wasn't every floor, but probably every 10th or 15th floor. Puts the the total per tower between 6 and 12.

They would have been placed along the core with a conical area of destruction aimed upwards. Aiming (neutrons) upwards would help prevent fracticide & nuclear fizzle in lower nuclear devices, which the under-rubble hot-spots prove were perfect. They were aimed away from the core, as was evident by the spire in WTC-1, but also to a lesser degree but still present in WTC-2. Final devices down low finished the spire off. They were aimed by-and-large away from the outer wall assemblies, except that a notable piece of evidence from the debris pile is that all wall assemblies were "steamed cleaned" of anything that was originally fixed to them. Videos, however, show much content absolutely smoking/steaming off of ejected wall assemblies as they fell.

You asked: "If located in the core, would they have the capability to eject the exterior sections, keeping in mind that they were either 35 or 60 feet of generally open office space away from the core. Also keep in mind that the exterior was mostly glass, so the pressure wave would have a limited surface to act upon."

If the shaped nuclear weapon had a conical destruction path, they would take out all metal pans supporting concrete and their supporting trusses. The "ablating" feature acting on this internal content (surface heated to the point of instant vaporization and causing a shock wave in the material) would be sufficient to launch wall assemblies, attached to the ablated content, outwards with great force. Section 7 above shows evidence (collected by Dr. Wood) that chemical means cannot explain; only the energy of FGNW and their instantaneous heat can.

Speaking of the glass in the exterior. First responders don't talk about tons of glass shards. The glass in many cases was truly vaporized.

You wrote: "I still maintain that Wood's main premise that the steel was dustified is false, because the recycling figures refute this."

Sure, I'll bite and agree that Dr. Wood, disinfo agent that she is, purposely mischaracterized (or let it be mischaracterized) the amount of steel not present. Your references do not account for it all, though. And the significant percentage of iron spheres found in the dust (of the lobby of an adjacent building, no less) signifies that some metal was vaporized. We're talking sufficient quantities that the RJ Lee group and Dr. Harrit calculated at "11.6 kilo-tons of iron-rich spheres per tower."

You wrote: "The iron in the powder, I believe is explained by Jones/Harrit as the by product of the nanothermite reaction."

Just because Jones/Harrit explained as such, doesn't make it true. Look at Sections 2-4 where this is addressed. According to Dr. Harrit (via interview with Craig McKee), he believes that NT wasn't the primary cause. Dr. Jones admitted in 2012 that "something maintained the hotspots, not just NT." Dr. Jones couldn't get NT to account for pulverization unless something else was added to the mix (like RDX), because the brissance of NT by itself wasn't enough. He ever tested for anything else in his dust samples, though.

And none of the other groups ever found anything, either. Only Dr. Jones supposedly found "energetic materials." In reality, what the dust reveals (in all samples) is flakes of aluminum and iron that were a result of the corrosion between the aluminum cladding that covered the steel wall assemblies, and was issue #2 (next to issue #1 of asbestos) that made the towers a white elephant to fix and bring up to standards.
// Part 1/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 2/2
You wrote: "There are several examples of eroded steel (FEMA 403, Appendix C)but those erosions are fairly random, isolated to relatively small sections, while the rest of the member remains pristine."

Now look again at those samples with FGND glasses; easily explained. NT glasses don't explain squat.

Thank you for the PDF, which I hadn't seen before.

You asked: "Was WTC7 attacked with a FGND also?"

The answer to that is in the number of hot-spots attributed to WTC-7. WTC-7 is an example that the operation did not go without glitches; it should have been felled with the towers, not late in the day.

Ask yourself how NT would have been positioned within WTC-7 to account for the examples given in your PDF file? How could NT or anything chemical ever explain the pieces that look like arches, but are really "sags"? I speculate a very hot energy source that for beams further away, which these were, could still be heated end-to-end sufficiently to cause them to loose structural form and thus sag under the forces of gravity.

Even the beam (page 3) that was "corroded" to a thin area makes more sense from focused neutron / energy bombardment than from NT being planted there. (And why would NT be planted there, or close anyway? It is the middle of the beam!)

I'd go as far as to wild-ass speculate that the FGNW fizzled (e.g., didn't meet expected yields or in expected manner) in WTC-7 from fracticide by such devices in the towers. They enabled back-up plans to the back-up plans, which could have been a combination of working or new FGNW and other devices.

// Part 2/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

2016-04-08

Dear Mr. McKee, (Part 1/2) I do not dispute that the WTC was a victim of controlled demolition. Nor do I dispute the significant number of witnesses who reported hearing explosions. Nor do I dispute that conventional explosives could have played a (minor) role.

Conventional (chemical-based) explosives couple their energy to the target by means of shock-waves propagating through an intervening medium, such as air, water, earth, rock, etc.

If we assume conventional explosives were used at the WTC on 9/11 and try to deduce their placement from the evidence (videos plus eye- & ear-witnesses), the description of the explosion cadence suggests a rate slow enough to be counted -- "boom, boom, boom, boom..." -- like one every half second, or one every second. Given that the destruction of each tower happened in approximately 10 seconds, this would suggest one explosive event for every 5th to 10th floor or 20th floor. None describe an explosion cadence of 10 blasts a second, or 1 blast every 0.1 second, which is an explosive device every floor.

Now consider two anomalies. The first is that both towers, but most observable with WTC-1, had a "spire" or portion of the inner core remain standing briefly after seemingly the individual floors and outer wall assemblies were pulverized and fell or were ejected from around the spire.

The second anomaly is that survivors and witnesses at very close proximity did not report afterward damage to hearing from deafening explosions. While Dr. Shyam Sunder can be faulted for many issues with NIST's 9/11 reports, Dr. Sunder made valid statements: "Our analysis calculated that the minimum charge needed to make the critical column fail would have produced a huge 130-decibel sound, audible over half a mile away. None of the videos or witness reports provided any evidence of this."

Given the explosion cadence and the assumption of conventional explosives every 5th to 10th floor, their energy coupling to the targets (e.g., the concrete and contents of each floor) would have been shock-waves propagating through air. To achieve the observed pulverization, the shock-waves would have been large, which in turn calculates to deafening decibel levels to many survivors and witnesses close by.

Because deafening decibel levels were not the case on 9/11, the assumption does not have to hold that the primary mechanisms of destruction were conventional (chemical-based) explosives. Thus, sincere seekers of truth must continue their search for the another primary mechanisms of destruction.
// Part 1/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 2/2
Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons are primarily very intense sources of penetrating radiation that can produce direct work on a target and thus induce a very different response and observed outcomes. From Dr. Andre Gsponer:

"A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects. With proper scaling, this factor of 5 difference means that a FGNW will have a factor of 5 smaller incendiary effect, and a factor {cubeRoot(5) =} 1.7 reduced blast effect -- provided [one] assumes that the energy of the neutrons will be absorbed either in the intended target, or else in a large volume of air that will not be sufficiently heated to significantly contribute to the heat and blast waves. One can therefore conclude that for a given total yield, FGNWs will have somewhat reduced collateral effects in terms of heat and blast."

Furthermore for materials near the detonation point, surface heating can be sufficiently strong to ablate (e.g., "vaporize") and by reaction, a large pressure will be exerted on it, launching a shock-wave into the material.

"The main effect {of FGNW} will come from the neutrons. Not just because they correspond to a circa five times larger source of energy, but because neutrons can easily penetrate inside any material where they can deposit their energy locally and produce volume heating of the material. This means that the coupling can be very high, since there is little reflection in comparison to shock waves, and little losses in comparison to surface effects where part of the absorbed energy is back-radiated or lost as kinetic energy of the ablated material."

The bottom-line: FGNW have sufficient energy to produce explosive and even pulverizing effects. Because the shock-wave is directly within the material and not transmitted through the medium of air, the resulting audible explosions would be muted compared to conventional chemical explosives to achieve equivalent effects.

FGNW are directed energy devices. Speculation: they could have been mounted on alternating sides of what became the "spire" and aimed their energy in a conical area upwards. This would have resulted in the fountain-type effect of content ejection and pulverization (except for spire) as observed, and also would have mitigated to a certain degree nuclear fracticide or one device causing another to fail or fizzle and not meet its full nuclear potential. The duration of under-rubble hot-spots is a clue of nuclear fizzle and 9/11 not being a perfect operation.

Furthermore, other evidence in the aftermath (e.g., tiny iron spheres in the dust, tritium, heavy metals including Uranium in the dust) point at nuclear involvement. The cover-up also hints at it, both in what is considered solid evidence as well as what is considered disinformation, such as how nuclear devices are framed improperly.

// Part 2/2

M. C. Bruecke said...

Mr. Daniel M. Plesse sent to me an interesting video. I have not watched in its entirety and cannot vouch one way or another for all statements contained therein. However, it does have many curious points, such as the photos at 23:16.

9/11 Nobody Knows 2016 A New World Order 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ5VIlna_d4


This does show some anomalous evidence of light poles on fire. I believe that errantly aimed FGNW or escaping EMP from a FGNW could be applied to this to this.

+++ ADMINSTRATION NOTES +++

Emmanual Goldstein made a comment to this thread on March 31, 2016 at 4:08 AM. Plunking some text from that posting into Google reveals other locations where the same text was posted. As suspected, this thread was not the first or only place where it was posted:

- phahrenheit451: March 25, 2016 at 6:28 am

- WDTTG: 39d, 8h {= March 26, 2016}

- Thomas Potter: March 26, 2016

I took the comment seriously and addressed it respectfully (April 4, 2016 at 12:45 PM), as if it was posted for the first and only time on my blog.

However, the record shows that it was not uniquely authored for this blog's benefit. Surprisingly little of Mr. Goldstein's contribution to this article's comments represent unique efforts or address specific points in the article.

//

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 1/6) {mcb: Initial exchanges on Facebook.}

2016-05-02 Maxwell Bridges

Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I used to be a regular participant on Truth & Shadows as "Senor El Once". I am presently in exile with subscription abilities, so I can follow what is going on. I had requested that Mr. McKee give you my email or send you to my blog. The article linked at the top level of this FB posting (going to my blog) is what I wanted to discuss with you.

I used to be T&S's resident defender of Dr. Judy Wood. Given that she herself never claimed to be the end-station on WTC destruction methods, I stood on her shoulders and that of the 9/11 nukers to come up with a viable hybrid hypothesis. This you will find in the article.

My goal is for a rational discussion -- convince me or let me convince you. I sort of have the upper-hand at the moment, what with the blog article and all. But that doesn't mean I'm not fair and reasonable.

If you're going to be a champion of Dr. Wood, you need to understand the validity of her efforts as well as the limits of the same.

//
++++++++++
2016-05-02 Roger Gloux

I also am a Dr. Judy Wood fan and I also have her book.

That's why I don't participate that much on T and S.

I receive the e-mails to see if there is new stuff, but they base everything on controlled demolition.

++++++++++
2016-05-02 Maxwell Bridges

Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I give Mr. Craig McKee some credit that he ~might~ be amiable to the idea of Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were used at the WTC; he ~might~ be convinced of my case built up over years of discussion, primarily on T&S against Mr. Rogue and Mr. Ruff. (Alas, both in my books were discredited.)

However, Mr. McKee does not personally think it is important. He considers it a distraction. Controlled demolition, what ever the source, can be agreed on by earnest seekers of Truth. His goal is to bring more public awareness to 9/11 and its unholy offspring, and doesn't want discussion (for newbies) bogged down in minutia. His hobby horse is the Pentagon.

My premise is that Dr. Wood has many nuggets of truth. But because she purposely and admittedly does not go the full distance in her research and doesn't connect her premises together, SHE IS NOT THE END STATION. Her book even encourages readers to look at the evidence and not be distracted (e.g., by what she writes.)

At any rate, my blatant agenda here is -- if valid -- to move your understanding further and closer to what I believe is the end station: FGNW.

Please give it an earnest read.

//

++++++++++
2016-05-02 Roger Gloux

Maxwell Bridges I personally don't think it was controlled demolition done with explosives of any kind, including FGNW. I think Dr. Judy Wood "hit the nail on the head" and believes it was some kind of magnetic force that dissolves steel and other materials into powder.

If you read the book and dissect what she says, you can't come to the conclusion it was some kind of "nuke". I've read the book several times and have loaned it to others who agree with her views.

It appears you leafed through it like Craig Mckee did and really didn't see what she is getting at.

(// Part 1/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 2A/6)
Dear Mr. Roger Gloux, I will give you a pass on your characterization that I allegedly "leafed leafed through [Dr. Judy Wood's book] like Craig Mckee did and really didn't see what she is getting at." You don't know me and haven't researched me yet. FTR, I was the one who got Mr. McKee and Mr. Rogue their copies of Dr. Wood's book. ["Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!"]

Although rabbit-hole links were provided even with Mr. McKee's connecting introduction on T&S, although this FB discussion has further such links, and although I know for a fact that you have come across my writing (as Senor El Once = SEO) on T&S (because you responded to an old SEO comment in an old Wood thread), you get a pass today from not digging deeper into my writing and thereby fathoming my true familiarity of Dr. Judy Wood's book and website. I ain't one to be taken lightly.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gloux, I cannot give you a pass on your statements (re-arranged): "I think Dr. Judy Wood 'hit the nail on the head' and believes it was some kind of magnetic force that dissolves steel and other materials into powder. I personally don't think it was controlled demolition done with explosives of any kind, including FGNW."

Your statement indicates that you might not have read Dr. Wood's book very thoroughly.

(1) Dr. Wood does not power her premise with anything real-world operational.

(2) Dr. Wood drops a lot of innuendo -- some of it applicable, some of it not -- but purposely does not connect any dots, make any claims, or draw any conclusions. SHE IS NOT THE END STATION, never claims she was.

(3) Dr. Wood's research into DEW and nuclear devices falls way short of an engineering professor at a university or with access to a university's library. Case in point, she probably never should have framed her non-claim premise or let it get framed as "beams from space", because even half-assed research into DEW would identify two limiting factors as optics and energy sources. Another case is her giving nuclear sources the bum's rush.

For what it is worth, your phrase "magnetic force that dissolves steel and other materials into powder" completely mischaracterizes Dr. Wood's work ~and~ how real-world FGNW would achieve things. FGNW is the natural merged growth path for both DEW and Nukes.

Do yourself a favor and acknowledge up front this fact about Dr. Judy Wood's work: IT IS NOT THE END STATION.

This is critical. Forewarned is forearmed.

I'm a fair fellow. Failure to make such an acknowledgment of Dr. Wood's work NOT BEING THE END STATION? That will not reflect well on you, and I expose parts of my game plan in how any efforts from you to move understanding BACKWARDS to Dr. Wood will be defeated. Unlike others with whom you've had discussions, I have the goods to debunk Dr. Wood. In short, I accomplish it by accepting copious amounts of nuggets of truth from her work, and then bring up the three facts listed above. SHE IS NOT THE END STATION.

If you are a sincere truth seeker, making such a "NOT AN END STATION" acknowledgment won't be a hardship and puts you into the proper frame of mind to objectively review my derivative work that stands on Dr. Wood's shoulders.
(Part 2A/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 2B/6)

Please avail yourself of the link to my blog article "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW." Fair fellow that I am, if you want to disabuse me of FGNW, my case is made point-by-point. If I am in error, please correct me.

Please make sure you read the comments under the blog post, such as an interesting discussion with a brain-dead Dr. Wood supporter going by the name "Emmanuel Goldstein"(who has had participation on T&S in the past.)

As a further token of my fairness, that article gives you rabbit-hole links into the best of my meager 9/11 truth seeking efforts. El-oh-el, I do ~NOT~ encourage you to read any of it front-to-back or word-for-word, such a mind-numbing, repetitive, time-suck it is even for me! However, you could get clues into my religious fanatisicm (I'm fanatical about Truth), and more importantly into how our common discussion opponents (Mr. HybridRogue1 and Mr. Adam Ruff) were dispatched (on T&S)...

Mr. Gloux, naive and trusting that I am, I hope that now (or by the time you do your homework on my blog) you & I ought to be on the same page regarding Dr. Wood's interesting work: not an end station.

The purpose of my contacting you (even from T&S exile) is to advance understanding beyond Dr. Wood's "non claims" and to get to something real-world. My derivative efforts into FGNW are the natural extension of Dr. Wood's work.

//

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html
(// Part 2B/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 3A/6)

2016-05-05 Roger Gloux
Maxwell Bridges I will go through your post systematically and try to address everything you said.

Regarding Craig Mckee and most other guys who have a "forum", get the book or have it given to them but only look at some pictures and figure she is a nutcase and don't read what she found out. Instead they put her into the "space beam" area along with aliens.

In other words they don't think she is credible.

The reason why I paid $60.00 Canadian for the book, is because I figured she was on to something not seen before.

You said.... "(1) Dr. Wood does not power her premise with anything real-world operational."

I disagree with your perception. She tries hard not to say what she thinks it is, except to say a Directed Energy Weapon capable of aiming at a specific spot making "round holes" all over the complex. Similar to a microwave that will eventually burn something into a black crisp but not hurt the paper plate it sits on.

You said.... "(2) Dr. Wood drops a lot of innuendo -- some of it applicable, some of it not -- but purposely does not connect any dots, make any claims, or draw any conclusions. SHE IS NOT THE END STATION, never claims she was. "

I disagree again, though she does try she is not successful in just looking at what happened but ties it in with an electrical motor producing some kind of electrical discharge and also hooking into electrical storms for more energy like the hurricane off shore that very day.

(Part 3A/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 3B/6)
2016-05-05 Roger Gloux
You said.... "(3) Dr. Wood's research into DEW and nuclear devices falls way short of an engineering professor at a university or with access to a university's library. Case in point, she probably never should have framed her non-claim premise or let it get framed as "beams from space", because even half-assed research into DEW would identify two limiting factors as optics and energy sources. Another case is her giving nuclear sources the bum's rush."

One reason she gives the nuclear sources a bums rush is there wasn't any radiation and there wasn't any explosion to register on the Richter scale. And the bathtub was not damaged by any explosions of any kind, otherwise Manhattan would have been flooded by having the River going down the train tunnels. There is no evidence of high heat whether from a big or small nuke.If it was a "nuke" then the paper wouldn't have survived and we all know it did. And not forgetting the survivors in the stairwell with sunshine on them when there was a 110 story building over them. They weren't cooked from heat or radiation. They actually walked out on their own strength and were conversing on their radios with the rescuers.

You said.... "Do yourself a favor and acknowledge up front this fact about Dr. Judy Wood's work: IT IS NOT THE END STATION."

I disagree again with your assertion because short of saying it was a high energy capable of being aimed like a crowd dispersal energy aimed at soldiers or rioters in the city streets, is what she is insinuating. She points out the circular areas after the pulverization, indicating something was aimed here. Not forgetting building Six and Five with huge holes inside the buildings leaving the outside wall with office furniture still in what's left of the offices, still standing all the way down to the main floor. If there was explosives here of any kind it would have blown these walls over and it didn't. This is why people have ridiculed her with this "beam" thing. I have read the book several times to make sure I was getting it straight so if you think you will defeat me your going to be in for a big surprise.

As for you saying she is "only" a Professor, you missed she specializes in a number of things and is why she came up with a different "lingo" to address the different phenomenon that occurred. If you actually read her book to see what she was getting at, I'm sure you know what I am talking about. But...... it seems you skipped through it and is the reason why you have said what you did.

You said you go into detail such as in your "religious fanaticism" as if your understanding is better then others. I don't know what your religious beliefs are and I don't care as I have my own views on these matters based on the details I found, much the same as reading what other people say about 9/11 and then making a decision on the information I find.

So far you haven't impressed me, nor do I like people mildly threatening me to making myself out to be a fool. I don't scare easy and I don't care what others think. I'm an "in your face" kind of guy and speak "straight from the shoulder" and say it like it is.

As for T& S I'm loosing interest very fast.
(// Part 3/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 4/6)

Dear Mr. Gloux,

Except for what the "Gestapo" will serve up at our trials for voicing truth to power, Facebook has no permenance to lay people. FB tends to bury discussions and to constantly churn new noise "on top on top on top". So I make no excuses for my blatant manuever of re-locating discussion under the relevant FGNW article on my blog. [You are encourage to save the same exchanges yourself and re-purpose as you see fit (on your blog?)]

Thank you for your reply. As is my alleged OCD nature, I will endeavor to go through it point-by-point. Before I do so, allow me to highlight some irony in your response.

I made a lot of hay in past years by cornering Woodsian detractors with the simple fact that they were giving book (& website) reviews without ever having held it in their hands, opened it up, and smelled its crack [ah, the aroma of fresh multi-colored ink.] When this became a blocker to my attempts at an earnest, rational, reasoned discussion, I offered to sent copies of Dr. Wood's book to those detractors. Little did I know how much hay this would produce!

On the one hand, we have those who refused (Mr. Phil Jayhan, Mr. Simon Shack). On the other hand, we have those who accepted and then completely botched exhibiting any objectivity at all. [If you've got time to waste and want a good laugh, look at my re-posting of discussions from 2014 with Mr. hybridrogue1, Mr. Ruff, and assorted agents on Facebook.]

The irony here, Mr. Gloux, is that you, as a Woodsian follower, are now guilty of the same offense as the Woodsian detractors: making (book/blog) reviews & assessments without having read the source material.

I'll do you the favor of responding passage-by-passage, but it really should not have been necessary and you would not have made half the statements you made, if you simply would have "RTFM" before responding.

You wrote: "Regarding Craig Mckee and most other guys who have a "forum", get the book or have it given to them but only look at some pictures and figure she is a nutcase and don't read what she found out. Instead they put her into the "space beam" area along with aliens."

I know what you're saying, and have experienced it myself. However, I diagree with your assessment of Mr. McKee. He has permitted much rational discussion in the past, doesn't put Dr. Wood into the category of aliens.

I only have two complaints with Mr. McKee. (1) Mr. McKee doesn't consider question of how the WTC was destroyed interesting or productive beyond the agreement that they were pulverized by some form of controlled demolition [a category including Dr. Wood.] His interest is to get wider public awareness and not bogged down in rabbit holes. (2) Mr. McKee put me into exile not for anything that I did. His main concern was for the over-reaction, bad behavior, and antics of those who just couldn't seem to leave my infrequent, solo comments on deviant FGNW themes alone. [Mr. Willy Whitten = hybridrogue1; Mr. Adam Ruff]

You wrote: "In other words they don't think she is credible."

That's what they say on the surface, but then they get their hats handed to them when they are pressed for specifics. "Good, bad, & ugly" was a powerful tool in setting boundaries for the discussion. If a sincere reviewer cannot acknowledge items in each of the three categories, they get outed as not being objective and deceitful. Careful, though, because just as Woodsian detractors can be faulted for not acknowledging any "GOOD," brain-dead Woodsian followers can be faulted for not acknowledging any "BAD."

(// Part 4/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 5/6)
Mr. Gloux wrote: "I disagree with your perception [that Dr. Wood does not power her premise with anything real-world operational]. She tries hard not to say what she thinks it is, except to say a Directed Energy Weapon capable of aiming at a specific spot making "round holes" all over the complex."

Mr. Gloux, surely you see the contradiction you've uttered. I fault Dr. Wood for not having real-world energy sources to provided adequate power to her DEW (land- or space-based) to achieve the observed effects on the ground. You said that you disagree with that and then admit that Dr. Wood "tries hard not to say what she thinks it is." In other words, you haven't countered my statement, but should be agreeing with it and acknowledging this as a "BAD" in Dr. Wood's work.

Allow me to break up my #2 into #2A and #2B. I wrote:

(2A) "Dr. Wood drops a lot of innuendo -- some of it applicable, some of it not..."

(2B) "[Dr. Wood] purposely does not connect any dots, make any claims, or draw any conclusions."

Your statements (addressed above) already underscore and validate my statement #2B. Therefore your response may be only applicable to #2A when you wrote: "I disagree again, though she does try she is not successful in just looking at what happened but ties it in with an electrical motor producing some kind of electrical discharge and also hooking into electrical storms for more energy like the hurricane off shore that very day."

This is the very definition of the innuendo that I was talking about Dr. Wood spreading. "Oh, maybe the energy from a hurricane could have been tapped." Nothing real-world or operational about it.

Regarding my #3 about Dr. Wood's shoddy research into both DEW and nuclear devices, you respond with: "(3A) there wasn't any radiation and (3B) there wasn't any explosion to register on the Richter scale."

Regarding #3A. I challenge you to go out and substantiate your claim of "no radiation." WARNING: This is a fool's errand, because you can't. You won't find a single report -- official or not -- that documents (a) prompt, (b) systematic, and (c)_ thorough sampling for radiation that shows all samples at or below background levels. (Refer to Section 11 above.) Moreover, tritium-tritium-tritium shoots holes in the notion of "no radiation."

Regarding #3B. You are completely malframing the nature of the nuclear devices that would be used, both in their radiation signature and output yield. Refer to Section 14 above. FGNW placed within the towers have the advantage of being able to deliver energy directly to the target. They don't require the medium of air to transmit their (destructive) shockwave effects, although the air does get heated.

Your other comments about the bathtub and survivors in the stairwell other underscores my FGMW premise. For the record, FGNW is DEW and vacuums up and repurposes a whole bunch of evidence collected by Dr. Wood. However, FGNW does what Dr. Wood could not do: PROVIDE A POWER SOURCE.

I repeated wrote: "Dr. Judy Wood's work is not the end station."

You responded with: I disagree again with your assertion...

You were asked to acknowledge my assertion. You didn't. You disagreed while contradicting yourself with your previous acknowledgment that Dr. Wood "tries hard not to say what she thinks it is." If Dr. Wood is going to be cagey about what caused the distruction, then you have no basis to adamently argue the opposite: "Dr. Wood's work ~IS~ the end station." Dr. Wood and every other brain-dead Woodsian troll with whom I've ever had the "pleasure" of engaging in discussion have always made the assertion "Dr. Wood makes no claims..." No claims, means no end station.

(// Part 5/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 6A/6)
You then brought up (also from Dr. Wood) different types of DEW systems that employ different wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum called Active Denial Systems. You need an education here. Please refer to Section 15 above, particularly the quoted passages from Dr. Doug Beason 2005.

To prove that I am not shooting with blanks when I criticize the research efforts of all the good PhD's on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement (including Wood), I did some three-quarter-ass research of my own into the state of DEW/Nukes around the turn of the century. Just what was publicly available and not hidden behind "top-security" or other "national secrets" firewalls. I'm such a fair fellow in giving you a leg up, here's a rabbit-hole link to my Raw Nuclear DEW Research. Dr. Beason and Dr. Gsponer are two huge omissions from the work of the good doctors in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

You wrote: "She points out the circular areas after the pulverization, indicating something was aimed here."

Dr. Wood made the excellent quote in her introduction that was so important, it was put onto a sticker and placed on the inside cover of my edition of her book:

"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

In other words, don't get distracted by what Dr. Wood writes; listen to the evidence carefully.

Dr. Wood got many things wrong, such as the implication cars at the bridge were destroyed at the bridge. It led to faulty (non-) conclusions. Pieces of steel that she named "arches" is also something that misleads. They should have been called "sags". (Refer to Section 7 above.)

What you are indicating as "circular areas after the pulverization" in I assume WTC-5 and WTC-6? An aim-able FGNW device having a conical or semi-spherical energy release path would result in the same artifacts. (The intersection of a semi-sphere with the plane of a roof would be a circle.) More evidence in the aftermath points towards devices within the structure as opposed to "beams from space." (Refer to my Raw Nuclear DEW Research, because optics & power requirements are two limiting factors that shoot holes in "beams from space", if we ignore that WTC-1, WTC-2, and WTC-7 all were not destroyed tippy-top-down as dictated by "beams from space."

In describing WTC-5 and WTC-6, you wrote: "If there was explosives here of any kind it would have blown these walls over and it didn't."

Don't malframe FGNW into being what you expect from your misunderstanding of nuclear devices. "Ablating" is the effect that you should pay attention to in the above article. In a nutshell, between (design goal #1) energy at a wavelength and (design goal #2) neutron emissions, the target could receive instantly so much energy, that its surface "ablates" and turns instantly from solid into gas (or even plasma) which consequently creates a shockwave within the target to further decimate it.

(// Part 6A/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

(Part 6B/6)

You boasted: "I have read the book several times to make sure I was getting it straight so if you think you will defeat me your going to be in for a big surprise."

My goal is not to "defeat" you. My goal is to advance understanding of 9/11 mechanisms and to get you to shift your position. You don't have to give up on Dr. Wood's work. But you do have to acknowledge her work's weaknesses: NOT AN END STATION. This alone dictates that your views have to shift to get closer to what truly is the END STATION (whether or not my FGNW is in play).

Don't screw this up, Mr. Gloux. If you are being a sincere and as honest in your search for truth as you try to project, this will be an easy & logical transition. If you aren't being sincere, well... you'll discredit yourself.

You must have me confused with someone else when you wrote: "As for you saying she is 'only' a Professor, you missed she specializes in a number of things... "

Instead I wrote that her "research into DEW and nuclear devices falls way short of an engineering professor at a university or with access to a university's library." I stand by this assessment and prove it with this blog article and the Raw Nuclear DEW Research.

Then from your ignorance about the above article & about me, you go on to insult me yet again with the tripe: "If you actually read her book to see what she was getting at, I'm sure you know what I am talking about. But...... it seems you skipped through it and is the reason why you have said what you did."

At the top (and bottom) of the above article are links for "Hide All / Expand All". Expand everything and then do a Ctrl+F using "Wood" as your search. Identify all of the material that I have re-purposed from Dr. Wood's work. In short, it would not have been possible without an intimate knowledge of her book/website.

You wrote: "[Mr. Bridges] you go into detail such as in your 'religious fanaticism' as if your understanding is better then others." Guess what. I win this round by default, because you haven't RTFM above. Further, you still haven't outright acknowledged the fact that Dr. Wood's work is not an end station and was craftily positioned to not be such. This exposes a glaring hole in your understanding.

You wrote: "So far you haven't impressed me..."

Oooo! Too bad I don't care if I, personally, impress you. What I care about is the Truth.

You wrote: "... nor do I like people mildly threatening me to making myself out to be a fool."

Mr. Gloux, I am doing everything in my power to help you avoid "making [yourself] out to be a fool" by giving you links, my raw research, and copious amounts of hints & advice. But you aren't assisting yourself by coming to the plate NOT HAVING READ THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

How about we correct this deficiency to your efforts in future communication, shall we?

You wrote: " I don't scare easy and I don't care what others think. I'm an 'in your face' kind of guy and speak 'straight from the shoulder' and say it like it is." You sound like you might be Mr. hybridrogue1's sockpuppet. He couldn't defeat Dr. Wood's work or my derivative FGNW in a head-on analysis (that he then turned-tail and ran out on), so maybe as his trolling brain-dead Woodsian following sockpuppet, he hopes to infiltrate & destroy from within by making BAD & ignorant arguments.

(// Part 6B/6)

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Hey 9/11 Internet Acquaintances! (Part 1/2)

The above work addresses concerns raised by those (a) who say "no radiation = no nukes" and (b) who say "it was DEW" ala Dr. Judy Wood.

Common games in the concerted disinformation effort to keep public awareness from landing on FGNW were:

(1) Incomplete & malframed premises. Applies to Dimitri K.'s "deep under ground nuke" as well as Dr. Judy Wood's directed energy weapons (DEW) from "Where did the towers go?". The former doesn't match the observed destruction; the latter doesn't power DEW with anything real world and ignores wavelength optics through the atmosphere as a limiting factor. Applies to Dr. Jones & Dr. Wood with regards to how they frame nuclear devices: big yields, lots of radiation.

(2) Glaring omissions. Applies to Dr. Steven Jones in (a) his "no nukes" paper and (b) his nano-thermite (NT) premise. FGNW and work by Dr. Andre Gsponer were missing from the former; the latter doesn't provide the explanation for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. The math is missing that shows NT in any combination with conventional chemical based explosives implying huge quantities & a major logistics challenge to account for the observed overkill & unnecessary pulverization; but then becoming massively unrealistic & improbable quantities when getting the same to account for the duration of the hot-spots.

(3) Faulty assumptions and arguments. A chief error is assuming mutual exclusivity in destruction mechanisms. A related error is assuming one explanation for all observed destructive features & WTC buildings.

(4) Blatant unobjectivity & attempted book reports without having or reading the book. "Content" is probably more applicable than "book". A given is that, in order to succeed even for a short time, all disinformation has to have a solid foundation of truth before introducing the disinfo skew. The belligerent refusal to venture into the maw of disinformation sources to retrieve still valid nuggets of truth is a sign of unobjectivity in the participant, if not a disinfo agenda.

(5) Building on #3 and #4, the inability to form alliances and marry. Because Dr. Wood's DEW needs power (and because she stops short of make & model), the natural grow path for DEW is towards nuclear power sources. Likewise, the natural growth path for nuclear devices is towards DEW. In fact, all FGNW are technically classified as DEW. Yet do you see objective supporters of DEW or nuclear devices borrowing nuggets of truth from the other? Do you see them modifying their views based on new analysis and information? No.

// Part 1/2

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 2/2
I repeat: nearly all FGNW are technically DEW. FGNW are designed for tactical yields. Being fusion based and closely related to neutron devices, their radiation side-effects are short-lived. However, tritium is a signature trace element, and lo and behold the song-and-dance & stilted reports that lamely tried to explain away tritium being measured (even haphazardly) and necessitating redefinition of "trace levels" to be 55 times greater than previously.

Targeted neutron emissions from FGNW has a significantly higher & deeper coupling of energy to the target. Energy coupling is the reason why the WTC didn't have conventional chemical-based explosives (even mixed with nano-thermite) as the primary mechanism of destruction. Conventional controlled demolition uses shockwaves through the medium of air and such over-pressurization of air would be very LOUD, particularly for the observed pulverization. Didn't happen on 9/11. FGNDs do not have this problem, because the deeper & direct coupling of energy creates the shockwave within the material (target).

It has amazed me that the 9/11 nuclear camp and the 9/11 DEW camp have been unable to tie the knot and get married, and how no learned PhD's on the 9/11 TM payroll ever made the love connection, most of them insisting on parking understanding in the nano-thermite cul-de-sac that can't even go the distance on the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.

The reason for such obstruction? The whiff of "nuclear anything" on 9/11 would have had, could have had, should have had massive figurative nuclear fall-out in our government and its institutions, as well as with the ill-got gains expected at home and abroad.

What you do with this is up to you. Such figurative nuclear fall-out from 9/11 nuclear revelations is still possible.

// Part 2/2

Anonymous said...

Good stuff Mr. Puentes, as usual.

Regarding the leftover "spire" that "turned into dust" according to Dr. Wood: It's my impression that said portion of steel columns collapsed in a way as if their base was removed. I do notice some dust being left over as it colapses, and it seems impossible for it to be dust from the collapsed building, as there is no time for it to heap up (considering how lightly it floats around after the "spire" collapses).Hence I haven't found yet an explanation for this event that makes sense to me. What's your personal take on it?

M. C. Bruecke said...

Quierdo Señor I.S.,

On the theme of the (WTC-1) spire, I have been consistent over the years in my waffling between "it was dustified" and "it fell and only the perspective makes it look dustified." Now that you corner me, I'll take the third option right down the middle and speculate both.

Here's the reasoning behind my speculation. Although focused attention on the spire was inpired largely from Dr. Wood's work, her work isn't without errors. An error that I believe she made here was in using only one camera perspective to make her "dustification" claim that she then allowed (or didn't object to others appropriating and malframing) into being "all of the steel in the towers was dustified", when clearly from her collection of photos most of the steel was not.

Dr. Wood had sufficient time between writing this on her website and re-purposing it in her book to locate other camera perspectives of the same spire, where the spire appears to fall over.

However, the manner in which the spire falls over and becomes disjointed, while not true dustification, does demonstrate a different set of energy acting on it from underneath, the final clean-up operation.

Assume that the FGNW could aim their emission: at least hemispherical, if not conical and up [my belief]. This would allow two or more tandem devices to be deployed without neutron emissions from one device causing others to not reach designed yields or to go into nuclear fizze. [9/11 wasn't perfect, and duration of hot-spots points to some nuclear fizzle in the overkill operation.] To give greater predictability to the destructive outcome, the FGNW may have been attached to structural elements that they planned would more or less remain fixed (and that later became "the spire.") A fixed base would be important if nuclear detonation wasn't instantaneous but had a duration of, say, so-many tens (or hundreds) of milliseconds. Otherwise without a fixed base, falling structure & debris could jostle & misalign a FGNW's orientation during its prolonged detonation and give unpredictable collateral damage. To further mitigate nuclear fizzle, the set of tandem devices might have been staggered on opposite sides of the spire every so-many floors. The result (as observed) would be pulverizing of content within the outer wall assemblies except for the spire itself.

You wrote:
I do notice some dust being left over as it colapses, and it seems impossible for it to be dust from the collapsed building, as there is no time for it to heap up...

Energy at certain wavelengths could be likened to a microwave oven. Residual water molecules in some content (from drywall, to concrete, to porcelain, to humans) could be excited instantaneously into steam, whose rapidly expanding volumetric pressure would contribute to inside-out "pulverization" of that content. The steel beams would have reacted differently to the energy at a wavelength, absorbing it but not necessarily changing its form. [The neutron penetration on that metal would have been a different story.]

If the plan was for FGNW to miss the core columns that made up the spire, then a certain amount of content (or fragments thereof) would also have been missed that was somehow attached to the spire. Think fireproofing, paint, drywall, etc. Therefore, when the clean-up FGNW was activated from the base to remove the spire, its energy hit & pulverized content that had been missed before. This then could have been the sudden "puffs" of dust observed appearing and hanging in the air, while the metal beams of the spire separated and fell to the ground through the dust. (This was more evident by the perspectives of the spire that Dr. Wood did not use.)

This is how my FGNW explains the spire and what appears to be its dustification.

//

David Howard said...

9/11 Nuke Aftermath http://www.thepetitionsite.com/502/347/925/911-nuke-aftermath/

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Howard,

I followed your link as well as the rabbit hole (unlinked) references. Several were in the past sources for my understanding of 9/11 events... until new analysis and evidence prodded me to re-evaluate and modify my beliefs.

I stood on the shoulders of the Anonymous Physicist and Dr. Wood to take the nuclear & DEW theories to the next level. Fourth generation nuclear devices (FGND) is the result of that marriage.

Please read above. It is where they were heading but didn't quite get.

+++

Alas, some of the sources that you referenced have since unraveled to be disinformation, albeit choked full of nuggets of truth necessitating rescue. 122 Reasons Why I Am a No-Planer from May 2009 is an example. I was a planer until I became a no-planer and then became a planer again, so I know NPT inside out by now. NPT Carousel on FB "All Theories Welcome" and Debunking NPT@WTC will give you tons of detail to support my newer contention: NPT at the WTC is purposeful disinformation BECAUSE NPT at Shanksville and Pentagon is somewhat valid.

A major problem with the "122 Reasons" article is that it purposely conflates four different plane events together and implies all were the same. For example item #1 suggests the dearth of plane debris at all four crash sites. Correct for Shanksville & Pentagon, but wrong for the WTC. The WTC had plenty of debris including landing gear embedded in a wall assembly that was ripped out of the backside of WTC-1 and photographed on the ground in a car park before either towers came down; hard to fake.

Item #2 is about not matching of debris with serial numbers. This is true, but hints at both cover-up and that the WTC planes were not the alleged commercial aircraft. Real aircraft they were, though.

Item #4 is about no wings breaking off in 2nd video. This is a complete misunderstanding of physics that even I was duped by for awhile. I've addressed this in detail in the links above. In a nutshell, the effects to be observed on the wings depends on the energy involved which depends on a velocity squared term. At low velocities (autobahn to parking lot), we might expect in tact wing assemblies breaking off. At very high velocities, that velocity squared term delivers energy that overwhelms the structural energy of the materials making up the wing assembly. The wings shattered locally first before shards bounced or entered through window slits. Physic does not dictate that the wings remain and act as cohesive wholes or bounce off as cohesive wholes.

I could go on about why that 2009 NPT article has issues, but I won't. I already did. Please follow the links above. If you have issues with my destruction of NPT at the WTC, post your comments at those links.

Have a great weekend,

//