2018-02-11

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

13 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

David Howard said...

Nearly 10,000 first responders and local residents have now been diagnosed with cancers linked to the nuking of the WTC on 9/11.

Anonymous said...

Great pictures of the nuclear smoldering.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/48028443651/in/album-72157708997281912/

Anonymous said...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/textfiles/48028443651/in/album-72157708997281912/

The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel.
The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble
concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up

Anonymous said...

A very rare element and should not be found at concentrations 55 times normal in the basement of WTC-6 no less than 11 days after 9/11, which is another "tell tale" sign of nukes. The following is based on Mr. Prager's conclusion. The USGS report on the dust provides compelling evidence of the fission pathway of Uranium to Thorium and Helium, with subsequent decay of the Helium into Lithium. These correlations are the signature of a nuclear explosion and could not have occurred by chance. The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum should have caught the attention of any nuclear physicist, particularly when found in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. The USGS report shows that these quantities vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission.

Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority and you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact. The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6 But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack.
MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site? Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid? The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots. The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation. They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well. A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff. https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW. You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately. BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction.
you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are.

M. C. Bruecke said...

Dear Mr. Anonymous from July 21, 2019, I apologize for tardiness in noticing your comment and approving it.

You have a tendancy to accept the least reputation-damaging of the set of plausible explanations and are beholden to sophomoric "exclusive-OR" arguments that leaves no room for "all of the above".

Example 1, you wrote: "The smoke is from Welders using plasma torches to cut steel." I'm an objective and fair fellow, and will readily agree that on some days in some photos, the smoke was worsened by welder's torches. But given that they weren't welding under certain debris piles in various tower footprints that smoldered for weeks, your explanation falls short.

You wrote: "The cancers are from exposure to known carcinogens in the dust and in the rubble concrete dust causes silicosis the dust from wallboard causes the cancers that are showing up..."

Again being an objective and fair fellow, I will readily agree that the carcinogens you describe may have constituted the majority factor in first-responder illnesses. But such does not rule out radiation from low-radiation fourth generation nukes.

The discussion was about tritium that was found in quantities 55 times greater than it should in the run-off from WTC-6. Tritium is a common feature of nearly all fourth generation nuclear devices and is used in a fusion reaction. These however required a fission trigger, which is what the heavy metals and their decay elements in correlated quanties from the USGS proves.

You wrote: "Nope because WTC 6 was the customs house for the port authority..."

You are correct that WTC-6 was the customs house. It had vaults in the basements for confiscated weapons, money, and drugs. A FEMA photographer testifies that vaults were empty when they got to them, meaning prior to 9/11 and with foreknowledge. Funny thing is, the song and dance report about tritium suggested that aircraft exit signs and the gun sights on weapons cache attributed to the tritium measurement. Can't do that if the WTC-6 vaults were empty.

// Part 1/4

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 2/4

You wrote: "you MCB have zero clues about what you are typing or what TRITIUM ISOTOPES make a Fission device flat point the isotopes were present no fission no device at WTC 6 or under WTC 7 the basements of both buildings were intact."

Au contraire. I've already explained it was fission-triggered-fusion with evidence of fission (Uranium and decay elements, Prager's work) and fusion (tritium) leaking out of all reports. AND the NIST night filming of the pile actively shows radiation to the discerning eye.

Your reference to intact basements of WTC-6 and WTC-7 does not rule out FGNW which fall into the category of DEW. They worked as designed, directing their energy where aimed, and decimated what they were aimed at (ceiling / floors above mounting point).

You would know this if you had read the article (blog posting) under which you made your comment. For shame.

You wrote: "The mear fact that parts of WTC 1 were found inside WTC 6 indicates the auxiliary generators on the roof were hit and the fuel tanks ruptured causing the fire that burned WTC 6..."

You have a vivid imagination that is unsupported by anything. Where does the 9/11 Commission Report or NIST talk about WTC-6?

// Part 2/4

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 3/4

You wrote: "But you will continue your speculative fiction that has been thoroughly debunked through actual physical evidence which you lack."

I lack for nothing in physical evidence of FGNW. The energy sink represented by the pulverization of content is the most glaring. I also have the significant percentages of tiny iron spheres found in the dust, as well as Uranium and its decay elements. I have tritium. I have NIST videos. I have horseshoes, arches/ sags, and steel doobies. [If you're a 9/11 Truther and in the NT camp, what demolition configuration of NT would generate them?]

You wrote: "MCB what was the count of munitions and weapons ceased and held in evidence lockers? What type of explosives and RPGs was being held at the site?"

Don't be giving me your busy work. If you know the answer, state it and cite your sources. As further proof of my fair nature, I will let you know from my research that no report every provided before and after inventories; I look forward to your research that finds what I lack. Meanwhile, let us not forget that FEMA photographer has stated that the vaults were empty when they got there.

You wrote: "Was there also confiscated cargo there that would render your assumptions invalid?"

No. But you can prove me wrong.

You wrote: "The answer is the source of Tritium was the seawater pumped into WTC 1 and 2 to put out hotspots."

You make me laugh out loud. Why didn't the report on the WTC-6 tritium run-off measurments mention these seawater pumps? Instead, why did they go with the ludicrous aircraft exit signs and weapons sights?

You wrote: "The NYFD described the basement parking garage and physical plant of WTC north as well as the Communication server fires in B1 2 and 3 of north and south towers They were not part of any Fission device detonation."

Such hypnotic suggestion you utter. What part of the description of FGNW in the category of DEW would not be applicable to the description of the destruction.

You wrote: "They were secondary fires associated by the smell of Jet fuel burning and wiring from the utility cores burning as well."

The jet fuel burned up in the fire ball and within the first 10 minutes, according to NIST. The detonation point of FGNW would cause secondary fires locally, although most of the energy was released upwards and into the structure.

// Part 3/4

M. C. Bruecke said...

Part 4/4

You wrote: "A speculative fictional portrayal of jumpers being hot from a DEW or anything other than fire is fiction Woods is a joke when it comes to Metallurgy."

Good thing I'm not in Wood's camp.

You wrote: "... and tour statement on Tritium levels is exaggerated as you do not understand that you are quoting rainwater runoff."

Since when does rainwater have concentrations of tritium above the background levels? Who doesn't understand background levels.

You wrote: "https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf that is the source you may want to quote from..."

I already did, and completely gutted that report in the predecessor to the above blog article.

http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2016/03/beyond-misinformation-911-fgnw.html

You wrote: "Also try going on a reputable site like Quora you may actually be able to interact with Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW."

Why don't you take your own advice?

I did my research. And I know that "Nuclear physicist and people that really do work with Fission Devices and real DEW" aren't allowed to talk about it, and have stiff treason penalties for violations thereof.

But you didn't read my work(s), so aren't in a position to invalidate my sources, which are reputable.

You wrote: "You nor Woods are competent enough to even make speculation about DEW or any FGNW devices because you both simply lack any competence in the related sciences this is shown by your own speculative fiction and has already been called out and exposed quite accurately."

Such wonderful hypnotic suggestion more fitting of your own personal weaknesses that you are trying to project and pawn off onto me: classic disinformation technique.

You wrote: "BTW: the vehicles were moved and have no EMP or EMF damage so your false portrayal of evidence invalidates your speculative fiction."

What vehicles are you referring to? Are you talking about those near WTC-7 before it came down? Those in the car park catti-corner from the towers?

You wrote: "you entire blog should be taken down as it just shows how incompetent you are."

Thank you for that glowing recommendation and vote of confidence in my work.

But given the glaring deficiencies in your reading abilities, your research, and your reasoning already exposed in my rebuttal, I will not be following your advice.

// Part 3/4

gimme a break said...

John jorgensen sez : Yes , of course Maxwell. 9 million degrees leaves an indelible footprint . Cheney's pre planning of the aircraft impacts is truly anti American . The energy required to turn all the construction mT