Sunday, February 11, 2018

9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case

This article makes the prima facie case that Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons (FGNW) were deployed in the annihilation of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. "A prima facie case is a cause of action or defense that is sufficiently established by a party's evidence to justify a verdict in his or her favor, provided such evidence is not rebutted by the other party."

Note: A 2016 version "Beyond Misinformation: 9/11 FGNW " has been circulated on various websites and Facebook groups catering toward 9/11 discussions. Neither those championing the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) nor those in various camps of 9/11 truth (e.g., nano-thermite, DEW) have disproved or rebutted FGNW. Many exhibit tactics & traits of a disinformationalist. Common features across many forums were mockery, game playing, and avoidance of objectively discussing any of the specifics presented in the establishment of the FGNW presumption, followed by eventual banishment from the forum.

Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections


1. Nuclear Publications


2. What is special about FGNW?


3. Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11


4. Evidence of High Heat


5. Horse-Shoes, Arches, "Steel Doobies", and "the Meteor"


6. EMP and Vehicle Damage


7. Continually Regenerated Fine Particles


8. Radiation => Nukes


9. Proof of Radioactivity: Scintillation of the Cameras


10. First Responder Ailments


11. Audio Evidence


12. Video Evidence


13. Debris Pile Evidence


14. Security and Controlling the Evidence


15. Why Pulverization?


16. Manipulation of Public Perceptions


17. Controlling the Opposition


18. Trump's 9/11


19. Why? What is at stake?

Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections

4 comments:

Roger Gloux said...

Interesting perspective and let's make sure we blame Israel.

I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book.

Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten.

Why didn't the paper burn?

There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out.

What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?

What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?

What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?

What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?

Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that.

I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book.

Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk.

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 1/3
Dear Mr. Gloux,

Got part way through the response below when I received the distinct impression that you are cranking another spin on a Woodsian carousel. You asked similar questions on FaceBook that I answered and have since re-purposed in Part 7: Miscellaneous Exchanges.

You wrote: "I know you have Dr, Judy Wood's book and I also know you didn't read it through, because in our last discussion you were oblivious of some of the things found in her book. ... I think you did the same thing as Craig McKee, you thumb through the pages but didn't really read the book."

Nice try at shifting the discussion to Dr. Wood's book, but I'll remind you that the topic is FGNW.

You complain that I supposedly didn't read her book just because I didn't recall certain specific things mentioned only once (e.g., Scott Paks)? Well, I'll see your unfounded complaint and raise you two founded complaints against you: (1) you didn't understand Dr. Wood's book, and (2) you didn't read thoroughly the above premise.

Regarding #1 and your poor reading comprehension: Dr. Wood drops a lot of dangling innuendo, but she does not connect dots or draw conclusions. She never claimed to be an end-station, and her book proves that. She doesn't describe the devices -- whether space-based or earth bound --, nor does she power it with anything real-world. Her valued contribution to 9/11 lore is in collecting together a good portion of the evidence that 9/11 at the WTC was nuclear and raises important questions. She accepted unquestioned and unchallenged several government reports that then skew her analysis. Her book carries over several errors from her website that should have been corrected. In at least one case (police car 2345 or whatever number it was), such an error has her propose gross misinformation by stating the device torched cars at the bridge; the police car was torched elsewhere and towed to the bridge. She doesn't address valid criticism of her web pages that she re-purposed in her book. She exposes various valid research branches (such as soil radiation mitigation techniques), and then stops short. She did very shoddy research into nuclear considerations, as evidence by (a) the cold fusion circus and (b) completely omitting fourth generation nuclear devices. How could she not have found Dr. Andre Gsponer's efforts if she was sincere in her nuclear research?

I'll go back to Dr. Wood's work not being an end-station. She wrote: "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." By that she mean, "Look at her collected evidence, but don't be distracted from what she is telling you."

Regarding #2, FGNW completes Dr. Wood's work. It stands on her shoulders and takes it to the next level. It provides answers to all of your nigly questions. Did you even note what content came from Dr. Wood's work?


// Part 1/3

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 2/3
At this point, it is best to go through each paragraph of your comment one by one:

"Also who can tolerate the heat of tons of supposed molten metal flowing in a stream down a steel channel in excess of 2,000 degrees, all the while not burning the paper in the building or the observers of this phenomenon. I'm not saying they didn't see some phenomenon, I'm saying they didn't know what it was and thought it was molten. Why didn't the paper burn?"

Had you read my premise and understood it, it would be clear why paper didn't (seem to) burn. The tactical FGNW deployed already were designed sub-kiloton, but that is its total nuclear output. It is further subdivided into upwards of 80% of the energy being highly energetic neutrons. The remaining 20% of the aleady sub-kiloton device were heat wave, blast wave, and EMP. Things local to the ignition point could have been torched.

What effect would highly energetic neutrons have on paper? Very little. Not a significant enough atomic structure for paper to be effected. What happens to your cardboard Chinese take-out box when you put it into the microwave?

Concrete on the other hand? Its residual water would have expanded so rapidly into steam, the rest of the concrete was blown apart. Metal in the path of the energy beam would have faired different. Thick metal receiving the highly energetic neutrons could have exhibited instantly volume heating end-to-end, resulting in arches, horseshoes, and steel-doobies. Thin metal, like the pans and trusses that held the concrete, would have ablated.

Same for thin metal in filing cabinets, which among other office furnishings were grossly under-represented in the debris file: the thin metal in the FGNW beam was ablated. The papers enclosed by the cabinets? Some burned, but a good portion wasn't but was free to get blown around.

You wrote:
"There were 14 people in Stairwell B that survived, that didn't experience any heat, nor felt any concussion, nor heard any sound of explosives except a "roar" and nothing fell on them. They walked out."

The survivors did experience heat, and rather suddenly and acutely. What they didn't experience were flames or lots of smoke from a fire. They did her explosions but not explosives.

FGNW is in the category of DEW and explains this (a) as the survivors not being in a section that was directly targeted by the FGNW output and/or (b) a fizzling or failed FGNW.


// Part 2/3

Maxwell C. Bridges said...

Part 3/3
You wrote:
"What caused the Scott Paks to explode in the Fire-trucks, before the Towers were destroyed?"

Answered already. It should be pointed out from page 110, when they say they were "going off" and "exploding", it is unclear whether they mean "value exploded" or "tank exploded".

You wrote:
What caused the cars and trucks to burst into flames but only part of some of the vehicles were burnt and others totally burnt outside of the eleven seconds it took to turn those Towers into dust?

Ho-hum, Mr. Gloux. Did you not read "6. EMP and Vehicle Damage" above in the article under which you comment? For shame, for shame!

You wrote:
"What caused the round circles all over the complex including the sidewalk outside of the buildings foot print?"

I do not know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?

Be that as it may, how does Dr. Wood explain it? Probably applies to FGNW, too, because FGNW are the devices that Dr. Wood alludes to but doesn't ever mention.

Because I don't know exactly what you are referring to, I'm making another wild-ass speculation. The outside steel wall assemblies acted up to a point as a Faraday cage to keep contained neutron emission and EMP among other badness. But there were window slits. There were gaps in the debris falling. Through the jostling of the destruction, a misaligned FGNW could have had parts of its output escape. Just as the neutron output cones decimated concrete in the struction, they could have put holes in sidewalks.

You wrote:
"What caused the main floor upward to disappear while still leaving the light on in the level where the delivery vehicles used to deliver mail and parcels?"

Again, I don't know what you are referring to. What reference do you have?

You wrote:
"Building 6 pictures show the place never had any fire damage but the total interior disappeared right down to the main floor. What was left of the offices and their contents is still visible. The bare steel is totally rusted. Explosives of any kind can't accomplish that."

At this point, I suspect you are bot, Mr. Glous, or an idiot Woodsian supporter copying & pasting nonsense, but in any event is now definitely proven to not have read the article above. FGNW explain it. Look at Section 3, "Summary: FGNW Scenario for 9/11." Nowhere in the premise above does it talk about FGNW as being (chemical-based) explosives.

You wrote:
"Explain why there is a circle in the sidewalk."

No, Mr. Gloux. ~You~ explain why there is a cirlce in the sidewalk after first giving me some context and reference locations.

And just about anything you could did up from Dr. Wood's work to explain it, I'll probably turn around and say "FGNW can do that too, only better."

// mcb
// Part 3/3