Maxwell C. Bridges: Attempts at Rational 9/11 Discussion

x1 Maxwell C. Bridges : Behold examples of disinformation in action

2016-06-12

The following were attempts by me to have rational discussions about fourth generation nuclear devices on 9/11. Most of the parts in this article transpired on Facebook. By the very act of posting links to my blog article on FGNW, I attempted to move the discussion there. The following document many spins on the carousel.

x2 Maxwell C. Bridges : Thoughts on Facebook

Part 4: Facebook with Ken Doc & Mike Collins

x165 Ken Doc : April Fools: Dr. Wood

2014-04-01

x166 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers : stick your cheetos up your fuzzyblob!

2014-04-01

x167 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: Space beams.... but ya, that's what I'm saying

2014-04-01

x168 Mike Collins: don't make Judy Wood look less of a mutant

2014-04-01

x169 JoJoe Haleyscomet: put something in your microwave oven

2014-04-01

x170 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: flabbergasted

2014-04-01

x171 Maxwell Bridges : too hard on Dr. Wood's work

2014-04-01

x172 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: Here we go!!!!

2014-04-01

x173 Mike Collins: explain how a 'neutron bomb' can destroy a building

2014-04-01

x174 Maxwell Bridges : boils down calling it crazy

2014-04-01

x175 Mike Collins : i know exactly what they are

2014-04-01

x176 Ken Doc : rethink your position

2014-04-01

x177 Maxwell Bridges & FB 9/11 Truthers : without sufficient time to follow the link and download the PDF and read it

2014-04-01

x178 Mike Collins & Ken Doc: neutron bombs to be dropped on cities to leave the buildings intact

2014-04-01

x179 Maxwell Bridges : using variants of neutron devices

2014-04-01

x180 Ken Doc: facebook marks your blog as spam

2014-04-01

x181 Maxwell Bridges : Mr. Collins derisive and dismissive words

2014-04-01

x182 Ken Doc: a little more seriously

2014-04-01

x183 Maxwell Bridges : This thread is an April Fool's hit job on Dr. Wood and her book

2014-04-01

x184 FB 9/11 Truthers : shes a government plant

2014-04-01

x185 Maxwell Bridges : Re-check your assumptions and position

2014-04-01

x186 Ken Doc: Nuff said

2014-04-01

x187 Maxwell Bridges : Dr. Jones is the worst of the three

2014-04-01

x188 FB 9/11 Truthers : regarding space beams

2014-04-01

x189 Ken Doc: hard physical evidence presented is strongly against the hypothesis that mini-nukes destroyed the WTC Towers

2014-04-01

x190 Maxwell Bridges : Rebuttal to Dr. Jones Repudiation

2014-04-01

x191 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: I am not a Nuclear physicist

2014-04-01

x192 Maxwell Bridges : radiation argument is a weak one

2014-04-01

x193 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: died on 9/11 from radiation poison

2014-04-01

x194 Maxwell Bridges : deliberately framing nuclear devices into your pre-conceived notions

2014-04-01

x195 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers: Should I start digging a hole

2014-04-01

x196 Mike Collins & FB 9/11 Truthers : a fake account from the debunkers

2014-04-01

x197 Maxwell Bridges : there is a #4

2014-04-01

x198 Ken Doc: such a pretty lady!

2014-04-01

x199 Mike Collins: carbon nanotubes

2014-04-01

x200 FB 9/11 Truthers : GODDESS JUDY IS HERE!

2014-04-01

x201 Mike Collins: unless you can explain in technical terms

2014-04-01

x202 Ken Doc: Lung Disease in World Trade Center Responders

2014-04-01

x203 Mike Collins: after you're banned from this group

2014-04-01

x204 Ken Doc: hoping to catch a few more in my net

2014-04-01

x205 Maxwell Bridges : falsely associate evidence of one thing with another

2014-04-01

x206 Mike Collins: spent 8 years studying and working my ass off to get 2 degrees in engineering

2014-04-01

x207 Ken Doc: taking up your 15 minutes

2014-04-01

x208 Mike Collins: Master of Science Degree in Youtube videos and Conspiracy Blogs

2014-04-01

x209 Maxwell Bridges : caught malframing my words to meet your pre-conceived notions

2014-04-01

x210 Ken Doc & FB 9/11 Truthers such a sweetheart

2014-04-01

Part 5: Facebook with Atahan Ganduu, Ronald Wieck, JoJoe Haleyscomet, & Elizabeth Tague

x211 Atahan Ganduu & Ronald Wieck: Where did the towers go?

2014-05-22

x212 Maxwell Bridges : No scientists has legitimately debunk Dr. Wood's work

2014-05-23

x213 Ronald Wieck: ZERO evidence of "nuclear hijinx"

2014-05-23

x214 Maxwell Bridges : Your hypnotic assertions cannot be proven

2014-05-23

x215 Elizabeth Tague: Like junk mail

2014-05-23

x216 Atahan Ganduu: dreaming that the towers are piled up

2014-05-24

x217 Ronald Wieck: Israel's shills are peddling increasingly desperate claims in a last-ditch effort to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement

2014-05-24

x218 Atahan Ganduu, JoJoe Haleyscomet, & Ronald Wieck : she didn't prove shit, LOL

2014-05-24

x219 Maxwell Bridges : Steel converted into iron spheres is a massive energy sink

2014-05-24

x220 Maxwell Bridges : all powerful Allah breaking his own laws of nature

2014-05-25

x221 Ronald Wieck : Substantiating Reference Material

2014-05-27

x222 Maxwell Bridges : nuclear involvement with 9/11 is constantly misframed by its detractors

2014-10-01

Part 6: Cold Fusion, Deep Underground Nukes, Dr. Wood on Tritium, and Continuous Ignition

{mcb: Yet another Facebook group and (closer) attempts at rational discussion.}

x224 Maxwell C. Bridges : a shopfront FB group

2015-08-31

x225 Maxwell C. Bridges : WDTTG

2015-09-01

x226 Maxwell Bridges : Another forum, another seed planted

2015-09-09

x227 Maxwell C. Bridges : Cold fusion with Ms. Grable

2015-09-09

x228 Maxwell Bridges : What does Judy say in her book about the tritium levels

2015-09-10

x229 Maxwell C. Bridges : Pons-Fleischmann cold fusion was a fiasco

2015-09-10

x230 Maxwell C. Bridges : from the Aether with Ms. Grable

2015-09-10

x231 Maxwell C. Bridges : where Dr. Wood's book discusses tritium

2015-09-14

x232 Maxwell C. Bridges : my faulty memory of Dr. Wood's book and tritium shouldn't be held against me

2015-09-14

x233 Maxwell C. Bridges : I stand corrected: Debunking by Dr. Wood happened

2015-09-17

x234 Maxwell C. Bridges : a line was drawn for Dr. Wood not to cross in her work

2015-09-21

x235 Maxwell C. Bridges : duped seven ways from Sunday on these red chips

2015-09-21

x236 Maxwell C. Bridges : NT would be found in the dust samples taken by others

2015-09-21

x237 Maxwell C. Bridges : "Like I've been managed. What I mean by managed is the cover-up business"

2015-09-23

x238 FB Participants : Debate on Dr. Wood

2015-09-26

x239 Maxwell C. Bridges : fit to judge Dr. Wood's book

2015-09-24

x240 FB Participants : the true treasure of WDTTG is the collection of evidence

2015-09-26

x241 Maxwell C. Bridges : Your unsubscription from this forum is eagerly anticipated

2015-09-26

x242 Maxwell C. Bridges : newly recorded flash points

2015-09-26

x243 Maxwell C. Bridges : the perfect source of 9/11 information

2015-09-29

x244 Tim Grice Sr. : placed my findings in a video presentation

2015-09-28

x245 Maxwell C. Bridges : the good far outweighing the bad

2015-09-29

x246 Tim Grice Sr. : One Continuous Event

2015-09-29

x247 Maxwell C. Bridges : lessons learned going around the 9/11 block

2015-09-29

x248 Maxwell C. Bridges : the improbable, Allah-defying destruction

2015-10-07

x249 Daniel M. Plesse : Warning to Norma Rae large amount of text below

2015-10-14

x250 Maxwell C. Bridges : a delightful read up until it went off the rails

2015-10-14

Part 7: Halifax & Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier

{mcb: Along the way, I happened upon the blog of Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier: 911 Justice Halifax. After seeing what was posted, the response to my comments, and the moderation of my comments, the blog is a great example of internet profitting by peddling 9/11 disinformation.}

x251 Herr der Elf : too clasified to publish: Bush nuclear piracy exposed

2016-02-16

Herr der Elf
February 16, 2016 at 8:26 pm

I’ve been a champion of 9/11 nuclear devices for years. The above has many truths to it. However, I do not judge the underground detonation (as proposed by the Russian, Dimitri Khalezov) to be valid. The visual evidence of the top-down destruction contradicts the notion that a single underground nuke accomplished what was observed. Multiple of these W-54 devices — aiming their neutrons upwards — is more probable.

Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier
February 16, 2016 at 8:37 pm

now visualized the center column dropping down into the nuke, what would be remaining..the outside shell, which is what you see exploding out wards.. remember no pieces of the huge in support columns remained visible because they melted into that molten steel lake at the bottom of the 8 story deep hole..

Herr der Elf
2016-02-16

Dear Mr. Towsey,

I can certainly visualize your premise, but do not agree that this visualization matches the evidence: top-down. A nuclear device acting from the bottom-up (as presented by Dimitri) would have vastly different observations. Furthermore, the upper 20+ stories accordianed in on themselves.

Now you visualize multiple 4th generation devices fashioned in a way to direct their neutrons (like upwards). This would help prevent fracticide between multiple nuclear devices as well as reducing the main side-effects of the nuclear yield (e.g., blast wave, heat wave, EMP).

This would explain the progressive top-down wave of the outer shell exploding outwards. It could even go on to explain the 8 story deep hole (if I don't sit on the fence that this could also have been a geological formation).

Dr. Steven Jones has several "tells" in his work that makes him less than reliable as the "9/11 nuclear physicist." Aside from accepting government reports on radiation (and tritium) at face value and aside from re-defining trace amounts, he never once mentioned 4th generation nuclear devices. [His nano-thermite work can't go the distance in accounting for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. Moreover, the supposed evidence of NT was only found in his samples. All other samples don't show this; they show high percentages of iron spheres which he explains away as the resultant reaction of NT with steel. I say / We say that it could be the result of extremely hot nuclear detonations.]

Andre Gsponer (worthy of a google effort) wrote on this subject many times -- but as an outsider. One can expect with the "national secrets" clamp-down against revealing information about nuclear details that there ISN'T much to coaberate his work (like a 1999 book somewhat speculative that should have been known to Dr. Jones, Dr. Wood, etc.) The surprising thing is that there is also nothing CONTRADICTING Mr. Gsponer's work either; nothing saying it was bogus or on the wrong track. In fact, he went through several revisions of that book, so his speculation was on the right tract and refined through other sources.

My blog (a tedious bore to read front-to-back, sorry, mate) more or less documents my thought transformation, and how I attempted to rescue nuggets of truth from disinformation sources to craft a nuclear explanation for 9/11 at the WTC that addresses more of the evidence and leaves fewer gaps.

Alas, I've been disillusioned and burned out for quite some time, so I have grusomely procrastinated taking my premise to the level where my thinking & reasoning are now: fourth generation nuclear devices (as described by Andre Gsponer, who, to my knowledge, has never written anything about 9/11). But were I to overcome this writer's block, it would mine and carry-over much information from my earlier works, such as this and why I provided the link:

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

The above was re-crafted from another piece. It was intended for VT, but was never published there. And owing to my general burn-out, it is a good thing, because (1) I'm no longer inclined to defend against hosts of disinfo trolls, and (2) my thinking has evolved to 4th generation devices.

At any rate, just letting you know I've been around the 9/11 block more than a few times. My patience has suffered as a result. My apologies in advance.

//

x252 Herr der Elf : jumping to "satillite or UFO directed energy"

2016-02-17

Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier
February 17, 2016 at 8:33 pm

It amazes me the story of directed energy..I have asked this question when I found stories telling such..here is the question.. So where exactly is this directed energy supposed to originate from.. A satellite or what a UFO?

+++

Herr der Elf
2016-02-17

Dear Mr. Towsey,

Your framing of the discussion and jumping to "satillite or UFO directed energy" raises my concerns about your sincerity.

I will harken to my naive nature and set aside these concerns so that I can answer your question as if it were genuine.

The directed energy was created by multiple nuclear devices planted within the towers. The paradigm shift is to not think BIG with massive destruction, but to think tactical and even purposely throwing away energy (as active neutrons) so that tactical side-effects (heat wave, blast wave, EMP) can be achieved.

I was stuck on neutron devices being deployed in unconventional ways when I learned that even after they throw away much nuclear energy (in the form of active neutrons), they still contained a powerful punch in their side-effects.

But we know that research went into controlling the energy of nuclear detonations at specific wavelengths (e.g., the X-Ray Laser).

Extrapolating -- and of course running across Dr. Gsponer's work (http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf) -- we see that this is exactly what 4th generation nuclear devices do. If you want to use them in tandem, you have to be mindful of how the escaping neutrons (which reduces destructive yield) are directed so as to not cause fracticide (which it did on 9/11 and explain some of the under-rubble hot-spots lasting for months).

The remaining energy can be tuned to desired wavelengths. Allowing escaping neutrons as well as tuning the energy to wavelenghts, reduces but does not eliminate side-effects of the nuclear detonation, like heat wave, blast wave, and EMP.

When those wavelengths are on the order of automic distances, why the very observed "dustification" of content could be achieved.

(Dr. Wood has disinformation. Allowing her work to be framed as space-beams and such is one glaring flaw. She should have found Dr. Gsponer's work and modified her views accordingly. Be that as it may, she talks about dustification and DEW. Most of her work stands up when married with 4th gen nuclear devices.)

BTW: I had time last Spring to engage in my own personal research into the public information (at a University) about DEW and nuclear devices, particular with their capabilities around 2001. I conclude that space-based DEW would not have been able to achieve what was observed on 9/11. It is one thing to aim a high energy laser a weak yet explosive target on a missile such as its fuel tanks. It is quite another to dustify buildings that had no assistance from explosive elements within.

All disinformation has a solid foundation of truth. One of the goals of disinformation is to be discovered eventually, so that valid nuggets of truth contained therein can be dispatched at the implosion of the disinformation source and supposedly removed from further consideration by an inquiring public. Dr. Wood's foray into space-based DEW is one area where she shoots purposely her disinformation in the foot to discredit it. Had she done more research, she would have discovered its limitations (atmosphere, wavelengths, etc.) and inapplicability to the observed destruction on 9/11.

This being said, Dr. Wood is still closest with her DEW premise than all others. Nuclear DEW -- 4th generation nuclear devices. But within the towers, not external to them.

//

x253 Herr der Elf : the type of nuclear devices used on 911 were...

2016-02-18

Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier
February 18, 2016 at 11:35 am

Thank you for your great response..You miss understood the intent of my comment about UFOs . I stated that because others have thought it.. I think I will make a new post on my site that highlights your information..stay tuned..and Thank You..

Herr der Elf
2016-02-18
Dear Mr. Towsey,

Based on my misunderstanding, I apologize for my tone. Sigh. Having been around the 9/11 block too many times, patience and manners sometimes elude me.

By the way, early in your article you wrote:

The type of nuclear devices used on 911 were a modified version of the W-54 nuclear artillery shells that were covertly provided to the Israelis between 1988 and 1998 from US surplus stockpiles illegally exported during the Bush/Clinton era.

The above is indeed a gem. Might not be the exact model number of the devices used on 9/11, but at this stage of the game, having any model numbers at all hint to viability of nuclear means is gold. I've been hit many times with the ruse "if such-and-such exist, give me a model number."

And another nail in the coffin of those who promote limited hangouts (e.g., NT).

++++ quote from 0510071v5.pdf

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

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

...

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

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

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

++++ end quote

{From a discussion on my blog. A little repetitive to what I wrote above, but could be insightful.}

Each tower probably had 6 or so devices of the 3rd and 4th generation nature. Each was fusion based, leaving little lingering radiation. Each probably had elements related to neutron devices, because aiming various amounts neutrons out of the way would help scale down side-effects (blast wave, heat wave, EMP) and prevent the pre-mature killing of neighboring tandem devices.

Further, these devices would direct energy at specific wavelengths, that further takes away energy from side-effects and neutron output. What wavelengths? Weapons that used X-ray wavelengths are known to exist and were speculated in the Reagan presidency. Here's where the fun comes in for diligent researchers. They can pick representative sample wavelengths across the spectrum of energy to (mentally) test what would happen to materials. Of interest is when wavelengths are on the order of, say, molecular distances or when multiple wavelengths are output whose interference pattern could be destructive (which then puts it into the realm of Hutchison.)

Even wavelengths in the microwave realm could produce with sufficient amplitude interesting outcomes. For instance, concrete, drywall, and porcellan have residual amounts of water buried in their structure. Sufficiently large microwaves could turn such water instantly into steam with a very strong outward force to the point of blowing apart the structure that contained it. Concrete has aggregates as well that act like a fork in a microwave oven.

Dr. Harrit has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. Although not a physicists, he should have sufficient knowledge of atomic structures to speculate knowledgeably about what sudden influxes of energy at various wavelengths would do. Molecular disassociation and dustification might be applicable in the description.

I find it very disingenuous of Dr. Harrit and Dr. Jones (and many leaders of the 9/11TM with science or engineering backgrounds) to not attempt the research and to not attempt strapping on nuclear shoes and go for a stroll.

//

x254 Herr der Elf : NPT redux

2016-02-18

2016-02-19 {11:45AM, 6:45PM}
Dear Mr. Towsey,

One of my more notable weaknesses is being naive and too trusting. I'll even admit that I'm a duped useful idiot on many things, but it is convincing arguments aligned with the proper application of physics and science that sways me one way or another.

For many years, I was an ardent no-planer of the "September Clues" school of video fakery. Not only did I think it was convincing, but the debunkers of NPT (no plane theory at the WTC) had very weak arguments.

What finally convinced me of the error in my ways was a video that did 3D modeling of NYC and overlayed the videos from many different perspectives. It proved that what appeared to be entirely different flight paths were not only consistent with one another, but also with two sets of radar data.

Furthermore, I had direct exchanges with Simon Shack and his crew at the Clues Forum on other themes. Their position "all imagery was fake, nothing was real" is just too obtuse and unrealistic. Moreover, they had nothing to fill the void, like why "everything" was faked and what were the real mechanisms of destruction. In my mind, they outed themselves as disinfo agents. The true purpose of NPT at the WTC was to caste doubt on the two actual instances of no-planes, namely the Pentagon (was a fly-over) and Shanksville (no plane at all).

Later, I came across previously unknown to me evidence of plane parts that would have been extremely hard to fake. If you follow what I linked, it takes you into the middle of a re-purposed discussion (source) that happened on Facebook. (A link to that source location is part of my re-purposed efforts, so if you are on facebook, you might be able to navigate to it direction. Or you might have to join the group where the discussion happened before my links to source will really work. Not my fault, and I did the best I could to record my discussions that Facebook makes so easy to "get disappeared" in the internet memory hole.)

Without going into Facebook and by just going to my link, you'll see two images of exactly what I was talking about. It is a partial wheel assembly from a landing gear that is embedded between two vertical steel beams of a WTC wall assembly. ASSUMING A REAL AIRCRAFT hit WTC-1, this partial wheel assembly went through the impacted wall and had sufficient energy to rip an entire wall aseembly off of the back side. The pictures (at #x224) were taken before either tower was decimated. Other pictures (not shown but available on internet) show the gaping hole on the backside of WTC-1 where the wall assembly was.

I encourage you to read not just the #x224 but the entire re-purposed thread. It goes into the simple physics and explains how real aircraft could accomplish this.

I have done the research. I understand the physics. It is not impossible for real aircraft to inflict the damage that they did (excluding the subsequent tower demolition.) I've done the physics on the engine that landed at Church & Murray and calculated an exit velocity of 122 mph more or less could achieve that, which is significantly reduced from the the impact velocity (ergo, entirely plausible).

DON'T GET ME WRONG. If you want to promote that the aircraft involved were not the alleged aircraft -- what I call the "No Commercial Plane Theory" (or NCPT) --, I'm right behind you. The government has never definitely proved by serial numbered parts that the debris came from the alleged aircraft. Moreover, the speed and accuracy of those aircraft at near sea level flags being beyond rated limits of the alleged aircraft at even high altitude, pegs those aircraft as potentially not being the alleged one. But not being the alleged aircraft is entirely different than "no aircraft at all: video fakery & holograms."

Before I forget. You've got some videos of this English talkshow guy, I forget his name and I can't be bothered to watch his videos again to find out for sure. Part of his NPT arguments involves a complete and total misrepresentation of radar systems, tolerances to their accuracy, and radar data so that he can then prop up a cloaked plane (caught on one radar but not the other) that projected a hologram of a plane (caught on the other radar but not the first). It misrepresents the present state of holograms and what would be required to project a aircraft that is convincing from all points of view. I've got a good laugh out of all of his productions once "the other shoe dropped" and he presented his various conclusions (UFO's, cloaked planes, projected holographic planes, etc.)

FTR, the data from both radar systems to the accuracy tolerances of each represent a single aircraft that matches the flight path documented by many videos from different perspectives that 3D modeling proved was the same.

My sole remaining 9/11 hobby-horse is nuclear involvement in the WTC.

I did ride previously the NPT hobby-horse, but no more. Got shot out from underneath me mid-stream. Debunking NPT, however, has not become a new hobby-horse for me. I've got no horse in the NPT race.

I'm telling you straight-up, though, that NPT at the WTC is entirely a disinformation limited hang-out with no basis in reality. As was mentioned, its purpose -- particularly once sincere truth seekers debunk it -- is to caste doubt on the valid instances of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville.

Mr. Towsey, I don't know you that well and mean you insult.

What I'm about to say references however everyone else I have run across on the internet who championed NPT: they were definite disinfo trolls and agents. They were unwilling to acknowledge either the weaknesses in their own positions or the valid arguments of their opponents; even after their points were thoroughly trashed in one venue, they turned around and repeated the same points in venue after venue. Trolls don't get tired of repetition. This stilted reasoning and argumentation can only be explained by an agenda, because real humans with only a truth agenda and an open-mind would have "ah-ha" moments of, at the very least, doubt and waffling, if not conversion. Not these agents.

I've done the NPT carousel twice on Facebook. I've no energy to repeat it here. Good think I had the energy to preserve my efforts so that your readers can still benefit from it, even when I've recused myself from battle.

//

x255 Herr der Elf : Sorry to be blunt. No.

2016-02-18

Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier
February 18, 2016 at 10:15 pm

Remember when I mentioned the huge core columns dropping down into the nuclear reaction and basically disappearing and leaving a huge poll f red hot molten steel ..

Well here another thought that pertains to the huge antenna atop the building disappearing which seems that it two was turned into dust.

But I will not be talking specifically about the antenna.

Do you remember long ago when some researchers talked about the huge top section of the building approximately twenty stories that had tipped over sideways as it came down? At which point that section should have fallen further away and on to the street and adjoining buildings but mysteriously seemed to just disappear into the cloud of dust?

I did an article that you can find on YouTube entitled “WTC Constructed to be nuclear device chimneys” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YZ8wVBQycY

Will considering that nuclear reactions are frequency reactions such as electric current..

From the information you spoke of it seems to me that the huge core columns would of acted as huge conductors of the nuclear energy and that destructive energy would of gone all the way to the top and would explain why that huge section of building just disappeared into dust before it had a chance to continue falling over off center and onto the the street.

So the types of nuclear device you spoke of clearly would of been the cause of that huge twenty story block to just disappear..

What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks again for your comments..

Herr der Elf
2016-02-18
Dear Mr. Towsey, you wrote:

From the information you spoke of it seems to me that the huge core columns would of acted as huge conductors of the nuclear energy and that destructive energy would of gone all the way to the top and would explain why that huge section of building just disappeared into dust before it had a chance to continue falling over off center and onto the the street.

Then you ask me my thoughts on this.

I don't have much time. Sorry to be blunt. No.

My premise is that the 4th generation devices were able to release (nuclear) energy at specific wavelengths, possibly on the order of atomic or molecular distances. As such, the energy wavelength would be acting on all of the material line of sight in more or less the same way in terms of molecular disassociation or dustification. The core columns would get disassociated just like the other materials.

Were those core columns to act as conductors for this energy at a wavelength, to what end? Meaning, what happens to that energy when it reaches the end of the conductor? You're saying that at the end of the conductor, that destructive wavelength of energy escaped and acted on the surrounding materials to get those upper 20-stories to accordian in on themselves. To my understanding of physics, it would not have been possible for such energy to transfer through all of the material of the structure and then suddenly 20 or so stories from the top miraculously change into pulverzing forces.

It is well that you bring up that 20-story block. Its tipping and then then accordian'ing in on itself debunks the space-beams, because the destruction happened from within the building at around the level of impact by the planes. Under normal circumstances, that 20-story block in tipping would have broken up some, but could have remained somewhat cohesive and certainly would not have pulverized itself. Its angular momentum together with the path of least resistance should have had it tumble outside the footprint of the towers. The pulverizing destruction wave did not progress much below the level of impact until the roof-line had already accordian'ed down to that point.

In summary, the destructive forces could not have initiated in the lower regions of the towers and then somehow "pop out" into observable destruction some 20-stories from the top without similiar destruction being observable all along those lower regions first.

The 20-story block's angular momentum was arrested not by the structure, but by forces that suddenly appeared at that level to make the block no longer cohesive; in fact, the block was pulverized and accordian'ed in on itself (which then debunks the government's premise of a pile-driver). Destructive mechanisms were placed at that level; it could not have been a singular destructive device at the bottom.

I'm in the process of writing a response to another posting of yours.

//

x256 Herr der Elf : empty towers redux

2016-03-22

x257 Daniel J Towsey A Truth Soldier : Your long scientific sounding commentary is misleading

2016-03-23

x258 Herr der Elf : issue with both of your statements

2016-03-23

Dear Mr. Towsey,

I beg to have issue with both of your statements:

(1) That argument (about light refraction) means nothing here.
(2) The photo clearly shows there are no interior walls.

Light refraction is why we don't see any vertical beams of the wall assemblies that made up 50% of the WTC face. Light refreaction is also why we don't see most of the expected content (e.g., cubicles) on each floor. Light refraction means EVERYTHING here.

Most floors of the WTC towers had an open floor plan that utilized cubicles whose walls could be seen over (and light in this photograph refracts over), so that all could have natural light and a view out the window.

Contrary to your #2 statement, a person can clearly see many floors where a section or area were ceiling-to-floor walled off to create enclosed offices or rooms. The distance that we are from the towers messes with human perceptions. If we assume 13' between floors, one can calculate that those "tiny blotches" at levels about where the sun pierces through aren't so tiny in cases.

Be that as it may, the bottom-line to my comment is that the towers were ~not~ hollow.

It is a different argument to say that the WTC were under-occupied and under utilized. Were I to speculate into the Rockefellers motives and money management, their aims of having the tallest two towers on the planet as a monument to USA capitalism could be achieved on the cheap by not making all floors move-in ready and to only do so with new paying tenants. Office space has its natural churn; therefore one could speculate that some floor in the middle may never have been finished.

From similar past discussions in my laps around the 9/11 block, I've heard that it would have been EXTREMELY destructive to the NYC real estate market if the thousands upon thousands of square feet of WTC office space would have suddenly been made available; talk about a crash to the local market! Astute Rockefellers would of course know this, and govern the ramp up of finished space accordingly until supply balanced demand, which might leave many floors (in the middle) unfinished and never used. Government entities and agency front companies were known to have mailing addresses at the WTC; this could translate into only a fraction of such office space needing to be finished to the point of being habitable.

I have never looked for proof of consistent occupancy of all floors over all periods. After the 1993 bombings, many tenants left over time, not to be replaced. Some on the hollow towers camp have speculated that pre-demolition work could have been carried out for years on those empty floors.

I'm not in a position to disagree, except that pre-demolition (as well as hollow-towers) would be an easy, bat-shit crazy, diverting, limited hang-out to steer consideration away from my wild-ass speculation: the prospect of fourth generation nuclear devices decimating content and material at all levels. FGND thereby explains why such common & expected things (e.g., plumbing, floor pans, floor spans, concrete, office furnishing, etc.) were seemingly missing [or vaporized, pulverized, or dustified beyond recognition] from the debris pile.

I believe that there were real victims on 9/11. I only question the true numbers. It would have been in everyone's best interest to pad the numbers. I have studied the area of 9/11 simVictim rather extensively in my laps around the 9/11 block and found highly credible many instances (but not all) of "victim creation", especially enhanced by (infant) social media & the internet and by previous government proposals (e.g., Operation Norwood) suggesting such "to be able to control the message" and "charge the public's emotions." simVictims sort of becomes more obvious both in the number of families that did not come forward (e.g., airplane passengers, office workers) and the much smaller yet media savvy number of families that did come forward and used the "tragic death of their loved one" to promote pieces of the neo-con agenda (e.g., aspects of the USA PATRIOT ACT, invasion of Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq).

One could argue that the secondary goal of disinformation is to have the bogus premise believed & actively (if poorly) championed by a small army of duped useful idiots and agency shills, but that the primary goal is to have valid nuggets of truth supporting the bogus premise swept from the table of public consideration once the disinfo premise is (purposely) debunked or torpedoed.

I don't support "hollow-towers", but could support aspects of "under-utilized" and "pre-demolitioned". [We don't have to be getting all "mutually exclusive" about things.] The topic of "simVictim" was brought up with "hollow-towers" but is an independent nugget of truth, some of which is highly plausible if not validated as being in play.

//

Part 8: FB Froze & Porter FGNW

{mcb: With the exchanges documented in the earlier parts of this article, I knew the course of my research was taking me -- FGNW --, but didn't have an anchor blog article. Such was finally created and the basis for these efforts to "troll" for response in order to convince others & hone the arguments. Having met Froze & Porter in other (ultimately disinfo) forums of Facebook and been FB-friended, I was not surprised with their negative efforts or their subsequent FB-unfriending.}

x259 Maxwell C. Bridges : my overcoming-procrastination party!

2016-03-14